Virgin America coming to Philadelphia

[mixiboi]

[Lakey]

Wouldn't it make more sense to terminate the train at the first terminal which is on the walkable concourse, then have the people mover pick people up from there? They could use opposite platforms, or be at either end of long platforms. That way the people mover picks up people from the economy lot, hits every terminal, and at the last terminal it picks up people from the train who aren't flying out of that terminal, to reverse the procedure. That way train people who don't feel like waiting for the next people mover can just walk through the airport to their terminal, and if they're flying out of the first terminal, they're already at their destination without any connection. I see no reason to shunt people to a ground transportation center if it isn't necessary. That way you'll have headways which are twice as long, since some people movers will go to the economy lots, while others will go to the ground transportation center. It seems like a silly plan. One end of the line should hit ground transportation. The other end of the line should hit the economy lots, and the people movers should just shuttle back and forth all day, giving everyone great headways.

Given the new buildings between the parking garages and ground transportation, it looks like they intend to have a central ticketing and security location from which people will board the people mover to get their terminal. Given the cramped security areas at most of the current terminals that would be a big improvement. In that case having the airport line terminate inbetween A-East and the new buildings is logical (note: The airport line is not going to the ground transportation center. Follow the train tracks on the diagram. They go to a new building adjacent to A-East). People will exit the airport line, go through security and head on to their gate. As I've already mentioned, PHL is a connecting hub. Millions of people, vastly more than the number who arrive at the airport by train, have to get from one terminal to another for connecting flights. The curent options, walking or on the shuttle buses, are one of the main reasons why the airport fairs poorly on customer surveys. I hear people complain about it frequently. Overall having a central, and presumably more spacious security area, along with impoved mobility between terminals and to/from ground transportation would be a big improvement over the current state.

[Sailaway]

I, for one, will likely stop using PHL if they do anything to the train. It makes life SOOO much easier and convenient having a train that stops right at the terminal. It's a straight shot for me. As mentioned previously, I don't really care for EWR's "people mover" due the need for a transfer. I'd rather drive and if I'm going to drive, it's gonna be ACY, ABE, or maybe Newark. No driving through Center City for me.

Another thing to keep in mind is that many travellers already have one connection to make. Few people are going to make two. As somebody else pointed out, SEPTA may as well abandon the line at that point.

[eldondre]

thanks mixiboi for posting the picture which makes it sort of clear that they intend to have the connection between ground transportation and the airport be a spur. it remains to be seen whether it will be free as claimed, usually they are not.

It will be free and no it's not an inconvenince.

I'm glad to hear it will be free but your second point is without merit. transfers are always an inconvenience whether it be changing planes, buses, trains, or cars. the only argument you can make is that the benefits will outweigh the cost of losing direct rail service.

One of the purposes of the people mover is to make it easier to move between terminals, especially when those terminals are far apart as is already the case between Terminal F and the rest of the airport. If this design is actually built there will be even greater distances between some of the new terminals. The other purpose is to make it easier and more comfortable to get to ground transportation / baggage claim from all terminals and provide a direct connection from all terminals to septa rail, something that currently doesn't exist. The people mover would be a good addition to the airport. It's one of the few large connecting hubs in the country that doesn't have rail connecting the terminals. I think PHL is an underrated aiport but one area where it is far behind other, more functional airports, is the lack of easy movement between terminals and other airport locations.

of course, they could add a stop at the international terminal if they so wished so that's not really the purpose of the people mover. other airports lack a direct rail connection to the city center not to mention the suburbs, which Philadelphia has, and will lose.
there's another major difference between this proposal and its peers in the ny area (which lack direct rail connections to the city center, which is often a complaint)...this people mover doesn't pick you up at a major rail station, it connects to what is essentially a branch line. after this is built, it would make more sense for septa to abandon the line in favor of cheaper buses that would allow for curbside dropoff.
edited to add:

(note: The airport line is not going to the ground transportation center. Follow the train tracks on the diagram. They go to a new building adjacent to A-East). People will exit the airport line, go through security and head on to their gate.

the diagram is far from clear but if that is indeed the case and they won't be funneled between the rather inconvenient ground transportation center, then it makes a bit more sense and will function essentially as billy said it should. one woudl also assume that drivers would lose that curbside dropoff at their terminal and that they will have to be dropped off at the central ticketing area at A east

As I've already mentioned, PHL is a connecting hub. Millions of people, vastly more than the number who arrive at the airport by train, have to get from one terminal to another for connecting flights.

PHL fared extremely poorly in a recent tech survey with poor wifi. anyway, I believe the connecting customers account for about a third of the airport's traffic, maybe 40%, which would be ~10-12 million versus the 2.25 million airport line riders...and of course, the reason it isn't more has a lot to do with cost and frequency. and remember those riders are philadelphians like ourselves, we'd like to see the service become MORE convenient. also, how would it accomodate plans to build an airport stop, presumably on septa's right of way, for intercity trains that might bypass the nec at the point?

[Lakey]

thanks mixiboi for posting the picture which makes it sort of clear that they intend to have the connection between ground transportation and the airport be a spur. it remains to be seen whether it will be free as claimed, usually they are not.

That simply isn't true. There isn't an airport in the US that charges a fare for riding a people mover. For better or worse, I've been to all the US airports that have people movers and they are all free. I've yet to travel to an airport outside the US that charges for them either. Their purpose is to move people efficently through the airport, not generate revenue.

I'm glad to hear it will be free but your second point is without merit. transfers are always an inconvenience whether it be changing planes, buses, trains, or cars. the only argument you can make is that the benefits will outweigh the cost of losing direct rail service.

There will still be train service that takes you directly to ticketing and security which is the case now except, of course, for Terminal F. And obvioulsly this comes down to the interaction of variables including include cost, very limited land on which to build, balancing the needs of the various airport users, and keeping the airport operating with as few disruptions as possible while they essentially rebuild the entire facility. If they are going to have a people mover, the most cost effective way to do it is to use the exisiting right of way. They looked at other options and they were rejected because of cost. While you are entitled to your opinion that it would be inconvenient, I think you'll be surprised at how many people don't share your opinion, especially frequent travelers. What they are proposing is the way that many larger US airports are configured and it's not a significant source of passenger complaints.

of course, they could add a stop at the international terminal if they so wished so that's not really the purpose of the people mover. other airports lack a direct rail connection to the city center not to mention the suburbs, which Philadelphia has, and will lose.
there's another major difference between this proposal and its peers in the ny area (which lack direct rail connections to the city center, which is often a complaint)...this people mover doesn't pick you up at a major rail station, it connects to what is essentially a branch line. after this is built, it would make more sense for septa to abandon the line in favor of cheaper buses that would allow for curbside dropoff.
edited to add:

the diagram is far from clear but if that is indeed the case and they won't be funneled between the rather inconvenient ground transportation center, then it makes a bit more sense and will function essentially as billy said it should. one woudl also assume that drivers would lose that curbside dropoff at their terminal and that they will have to be dropped off at the central ticketing area at A east

I attached the link because the diagram is difficult to read. But if you go to the document you can increase the magnification and follow the train tracks. IIRC, BWI is the only airport in the US on a major rail line and you have to take a shuttle to get to ticketing anyway. With what they are proposing, PHL will still be one of the most accessible airports by rail in the country. If in the future Amtrak provides service on septa right of way it will still be possible to have a station very close to ticketing. There will still be curbside dropoff at ticketing, it will just be a central location. One of the problems that PHL has is inadquate space for security and baggage claim. Given space constraints and the need to accomodate other construction needs, it's a logical strategy. It's also one employed at many airports around the world.

PHL fared extremely poorly in a recent tech survey with poor wifi. anyway, I believe the connecting customers account for about a third of the airport's traffic, maybe 40%, which would be ~10-12 million versus the 2.25 million airport line riders...and of course, the reason it isn't more has a lot to do with cost and frequency. and remember those riders are philadelphians like ourselves, we'd like to see the service become MORE convenient. also, how would it accomodate plans to build an airport stop, presumably on septa's right of way, for intercity trains that might bypass the nec at the point?

Wifi access isn't an issue for me, but I wonder how much revenue they generate by charging for it. It seems they'd engender alot more goodwill by offering decent free access. As for future rail access, it will all depend on how those trains are routed. There isn't anything inherent in this design that prevents providing access to intercity trains in the future.

[mixiboi]

Here is a closer look of the SEPTA and the People Mover set up:




Also a little digging I found Plan B and C that is VERY different then A:


Plan B(the Airport lone would terminate atop of the underground terminal)




Plan C(Note that the Transportation Center has a SEPTA rail line coming out of it at that northern location)

[Lakey]

Plans B and C were rejected by PHL due to cost. Plan A is what PHL ultimately requested and received approval for from the FAA.

[mixiboi]

Well that sucks.

[eldondre]

That simply isn't true. There isn't an airport in the US that charges a fare for riding a people mover.

when you get off the train at newark or jamaica, it costs money.

There will still be train service that takes you directly to ticketing and security which is the case now except, of course, for Terminal F. .. If they are going to have a people mover, the most cost effective way to do it is to use the exisiting right of way. They looked at other options and they were rejected because of cost. While you are entitled to your opinion that it would be inconvenient, I think you'll be surprised at how many people don't share your opinion, especially frequent travelers. What they are proposing is the way that many larger US airports are configured and it's not a significant source of passenger complaints.

I doubt it, actually. people do complain about the lack of direct access from newark or jfk and obviously the people whose O and D here are the most important to the local economy. most people probably would share my opinion at being forced to transfer (particularly at the ground transportation ctr) while those who are unaffected by any change obviously would not care. I have no idea what studies you are referring to or how the questions were posed so I can't comment on their validity. as I've noted already, the fact that you have opted not to dump them at the ground transportation ctr makes the option less inconvenient. it's not as good as a direct connection that people now have though. and that silly little spur looks even worse...is that where curbside dropoff will be located?

I attached the link because the diagram is difficult to read. ...IIRC, BWI is the only airport in the US on a major rail line and you have to take a shuttle to get to ticketing anyway. With what they are proposing, PHL will still be one of the most accessible airports by rail in the country. If in the future Amtrak provides service on septa right of way it will still be possible to have a station very close to ticketing. There will still be curbside dropoff at ticketing, it will just be a central location. One of the problems that PHL has is inadquate space for security and baggage claim. Given space constraints and the need to accomodate other construction needs, it's a logical strategy. It's also one employed at many airports around the world.

. just to confirm, curbside dropoff for cars will not be at the individual terminals but at the same location as the train stop? I understand the security space problems and it is a logical approach in this paranoid era...that's why I asked, it isn't clear from the diagram how drivers would be treated. as for rail lines, both newark and jfk have connections to main lines. if amtrak decides to have service on the csx right of way, it would be as a through train. it is less clear whether stopping at PHL would be worthwhile but if you're saying that provision is being made for a possible future link, perhaps they or septa would be interested as delaware is interested in direct transit service to the airport.

Wifi access isn't an issue for me, but I wonder how much revenue they generate by charging for it. It seems they'd engender alot more goodwill by offering decent free access. As for future rail access, it will all depend on how those trains are routed. There isn't anything inherent in this design that prevents providing access to intercity trains in the future.

I could care less myself but I agree, and it's one of the reasons they were dinged in the survey. I believe the survey targeted tech savvy regular travelers. amtrak also found that charging for internet was more trouble than it was worth. as for trains, it's possible they'd use the freight right of way, in which case you'd have to use the septa right of way to extend air train and end airport line service or face a much more expensive extension of the airtrain to the right of way. it's PHL's best bet at expanding the OD market outside of the immediate area. those folks probably don't care about the lack of a people mover since they aren't transferring.

[LUCas]

All the sniping about stuff no one here has any influence over anyway aside...

This is great news, thanks for posting! I'm booking my flight to SFO on Virgin, screw you US Air.

[Lakey]

when you get off the train at newark or jamaica, it costs money.

I doubt it, actually. people do complain about the lack of direct access from newark or jfk and obviously the people whose O and D here are the most important to the local economy. most people probably would share my opinion at being forced to transfer (particularly at the ground transportation ctr) while those who are unaffected by any change obviously would not care. I have no idea what studies you are referring to or how the questions were posed so I can't comment on their validity. as I've noted already, the fact that you have opted not to dump them at the ground transportation ctr makes the option less inconvenient. it's not as good as a direct connection that people now have though. and that silly little spur looks even worse...is that where curbside dropoff will be located?


. just to confirm, curbside dropoff for cars will not be at the individual terminals but at the same location as the train stop? I understand the security space problems and it is a logical approach in this paranoid era...that's why I asked, it isn't clear from the diagram how drivers would be treated. as for rail lines, both newark and jfk have connections to main lines. if amtrak decides to have service on the csx right of way, it would be as a through train. it is less clear whether stopping at PHL would be worthwhile but if you're saying that provision is being made for a possible future link, perhaps they or septa would be interested as delaware is interested in direct transit service to the airport.


I could care less myself but I agree, and it's one of the reasons they were dinged in the survey. I believe the survey targeted tech savvy regular travelers. amtrak also found that charging for internet was more trouble than it was worth. as for trains, it's possible they'd use the freight right of way, in which case you'd have to use the septa right of way to extend air train and end airport line service or face a much more expensive extension of the airtrain to the right of way. it's PHL's best bet at expanding the OD market outside of the immediate area. those folks probably don't care about the lack of a people mover since they aren't transferring.

JFK and EWR trains are both transit and people movers. As people movers for navigating the airport they are free. A fare is required only for travel to/from the airport. The intra-airport people mover proposed at PHL will be free as well. Also, I don’t think you have any reason be concerned that the airport line is going to the ground transportation center. It doesn’t on the diagram and it would make no sense for the airport line to go there anyway.

To answer your question regarding curbside drop-off ... on the pdf there is a new building between A-east and the garage for that terminal. Since the airport line terminates at that building, I assume it’s where the train will stop. Beyond that there are two new buildings in place of the parking garages currently between terminals B and D. If they are going to have the people mover behind security, I’m assuming that at least one of the new buildings would house ticketing and security. If that’s the case, drop-off would occur in the vicinity of the end of the airport line. I also could be incorrectly assuming that the people mover will be behind security in which case things may be different.

Since they have don’t have limitless money, do have very little room for expansion, and building a new airport at another location is politically infeasible; the plan is necessarily the result of compromises. Within the context of the available money and land, they have to balance goals such as having more space between terminals to reduce congestion on the tarmac and having the airport line go to every terminal. They did consider putting the people mover below ground rather than using the septa ROW, but chose not to because of the high cost.

I think the people who’ve run the airport have generally done a good job addressing the issues they can control in a fiscally prudent manner and hopefully this plan will continue that trend. Over the past 15 years or so the terminals have seen many improvements, service has been expanded, especially international and I think they’ve done what they can to help make operations more efficient. The plan for future development isn’t perfect, but it's an improvement over the current airport and it looks like a reasonable plan given the resources and circumstances with which they are working.

As for Virgin, I’m skeptical that they’ll survive at PHL long-term. US has successfully defended its turf at PHL against strong competition to date. But you never know. Maybe Virgin will succeed. In the meantime it’s nice to have at least three airlines with non-stops to LAX. That will keep fares low on that route.

[BarryG]

when you get off the train at newark or jamaica, it costs money.

I doubt it, actually. people do complain about the lack of direct access from newark or jfk and obviously the people whose O and D here are the most important to the local economy. most people probably would share my opinion at being forced to transfer (particularly at the ground transportation ctr) while those who are unaffected by any change obviously would not care. I have no idea what studies you are referring to or how the questions were posed so I can't comment on their validity. as I've noted already, the fact that you have opted not to dump them at the ground transportation ctr makes the option less inconvenient. it's not as good as a direct connection that people now have though. and that silly little spur looks even worse...is that where curbside dropoff will be located?


. just to confirm, curbside dropoff for cars will not be at the individual terminals but at the same location as the train stop? I understand the security space problems and it is a logical approach in this paranoid era...that's why I asked, it isn't clear from the diagram how drivers would be treated. as for rail lines, both newark and jfk have connections to main lines. if amtrak decides to have service on the csx right of way, it would be as a through train. it is less clear whether stopping at PHL would be worthwhile but if you're saying that provision is being made for a possible future link, perhaps they or septa would be interested as delaware is interested in direct transit service to the airport.


I could care less myself but I agree, and it's one of the reasons they were dinged in the survey. I believe the survey targeted tech savvy regular travelers. amtrak also found that charging for internet was more trouble than it was worth. as for trains, it's possible they'd use the freight right of way, in which case you'd have to use the septa right of way to extend air train and end airport line service or face a much more expensive extension of the airtrain to the right of way. it's PHL's best bet at expanding the OD market outside of the immediate area. those folks probably don't care about the lack of a people mover since they aren't transferring.

If I'm understanding the PHL plan correctly, the people mover is not the same as AirTrain at JFK and EWR. SEPTA will take you directly to checkin and the people mover will only be to get between terminals once you are in the airport. Like the train inside of ATL. I don't think most people will consider that a transfer.

[eldondre]

In the past I think the airport has done a good job but I think there are different people running the show these days. If things operate as you say they will, the ground transportation changes will not be as onerous for rail riders as I initially perceived them to be. in a perfect world, we'd retain the ability to go direct to the terminal and simply extend the airport line into F terminal and the economy lots and run it more often but that wouldn't address any security concerns. overall the current plan isn't the greatest, as evidenced by the arguing over its implementation and cost, but that's mostly related to the $3bn runway.

I've never flown virgin and have no desire to go to LA (but SFO is a possibility)but I'm happy to see alaska launch service to seattle, which I might use. I agree that it's an uphill battle since people have shown they will stick with us air because of the frequent flyer miles and the options they have for using them.

[dontforget]

I've never flown virgin and have no desire to go to LA (but SFO is a possibility)but I'm happy to see alaska launch service to seattle, which I might use. I agree that it's an uphill battle since people have shown they will stick with us air because of the frequent flyer miles and the options they have for using them.

Alaska will likely do fine. They are just offering 1 daily flight really. I'm not sure with that flight that reaches SEA at 9pm, how many destinations from there one can reach, but Alaska offers a lot of connections out west at SEA in general, and preferred connection to Alaska than US does via PHX.

Alaska also codeshares with American Airlines, so one can take AA flights and earn Alaska miles.

Virgin is offering a lot more flights, but it'll be more effort on their part to fill all those seats profitably with heavy US competition and high fuel costs.

[Lolly]

Virgin America ponders Phila. airport expansion - Philly.com

[phillyaggie]

awesome!!

from the article linked above:


Branson, the billionaire record-company founder who has put the Virgin label on everything from vodka to space tourism, acknowledged he was unfamiliar with the Philadelphia airport debate. That didn't deter him from weighing in on the subject.

"The airlines may just be worried about extra competition, so they may be speaking with forked tongues," Branson said. "Generally speaking, the more runways, the more capacity you can give, the better it is from the traveling public's point of view."

[eldondre]

awesome!!

from the article linked above:


Branson, the billionaire record-company founder who has put the Virgin label on everything from vodka to space tourism, acknowledged he was unfamiliar with the Philadelphia airport debate. That didn't deter him from weighing in on the subject.

"The airlines may just be worried about extra competition, so they may be speaking with forked tongues," Branson said. "Generally speaking, the more runways, the more capacity you can give, the better it is from the traveling public's point of view."

yet the guy who actually runs the airline says something entirely different

"It's a very complicated balancing act for an airport," said Cush in an interview. "You have to build for the future, but you have to keep your eye on the costs in the present, or airlines just leave."

it's nice to be a billionar record company founder, but that certainly doesn't make him an expert on airlines, I'm guessing he knows that, so he hired someone else.

[eldondre]

Business - philly.comnew TX flights

[BarryG]

Business - philly.com

Direct flight to Austin is nice.

[dontforget]

Southwest used to fly to these cities back 3 years ago. It's great for Philadelphia (note Boston has Austin but lacks San Antonio and Nashville also), but I presume one reason was more for opening more transatlantic connection itineries for AUS and SAT. US will have to be the lowest on price for the pax to choose US on AUS-PHL-LHR as something like AUS-DFW-LHR (on AA) or AUS-IAH-LHR (on United) would probably be more comfortable. It's more comfortable being on a widebody jet over having to fly 3 hours domestic before getting on the widebody.

As far as I can tell, the next biggest domestic markets (within Eastern time zone or Midwest) that still don't have daily nonstop service to Philadelphia are:

Grand Rapids (GRR) (lacks US Airways presence altogether)
Oklahoma City (OKC)
Memphis (MEM)

The first 2 have BWI service, and MEM will likely get BWI service after Southwest integrates AirTran.

Out west, Salt Lake City, Portland and Sacramento lack daily nonstop PHL service. San Jose as well, although US and Virgin service the Bay Area via SFO.