They are not gates, they are piers. They and the whole building are considerably larger than they look, until you get up close. If you are not in a position to drive past, suggest you check it on Google Maps, then (while keeping the same scale) slide across the map to Sydney Airport and compare it with the size of terminals there. Each pier is capable of servicing one wide bodied aircraft, or two single aisle airliners, or up to four smaller commuter aircraft. There are seven piers in the initial opening stage. The current terminal wings will be extended to provide several more piers as part of the first expansion. The initial capacity is about that of Canberra and GoldCoast airports combined (10 million passengers per year). Gates can swing from domestic to international use, but international flights will operate mostly from the Southern piers, while domestic flights will operate mainly from the northern end. Initially there will be a sheltered walkway from the northern most pier for boarding commuter and budget flights from the tarmac. Eventually there will be two parallel runways, fitted with over 70 of those piers in four interconnected terminals, in a large 'H' pattern, with one and eventually two metro line stations at its centre. The eventual capacity will then be significantly larger that Sydney Airport (82 million passengers per year) or about the same capacity as London Heathrow Airport, which has a similar runway layout All that info is easily available online. If you want to see the initial layout search for WSI Airport Site Layout 10MAP. For the eventual layout, search for WSI Airport Site Layout 82MAP.
@@GlenAnderson71 I've heard people say something like that before, but I disagree. There is a limited amount of resources (especially relevant skilled personnel) available to build infrastructure at any one time. You have to decide what your relative priorities are (the old 'guns and butter' issue). Any individual major project that can be built in stages, should be built at a pace to match rationally anticipated needs, with further stages done as those needs start to actualise. By all means build in some margins, as unexpected demands can sometimes occur. Getting ahead of that means other projects (hospitals, education, other transport, residences etc.) are unnecessarily delayed or neglected, because the resources are not available. The counter argument is a belief that building at a big scale is always cheaper. I don't believe that is valid as infrastructure is meant to be productive. Build something before it is likely to be needed means part of it will sit idle, perhaps for decades, and costs money to maintain. Building expansions later may sometimes appear to cost more in $, but much of that is because of the changing value of the dollar, not its real cost. Aviation is a tightly budgeted industry. Excessive infrastructure has to be paid for, and in this case it ends up in higher air fares and airport charges. It makes an airport uncompetitive and it loses market share. It's the royal road to creating a white elephant. It is of course a matter of balance. You need to do it big enough and fast enough to get appropriate scales of economy; but not so fast as to create under-utilised results that cost money without getting an appropriate return.
So only 7 gates for an international airport?
They are not gates, they are piers. They and the whole building are considerably larger than they look, until you get up close. If you are not in a position to drive past, suggest you check it on Google Maps, then (while keeping the same scale) slide across the map to Sydney Airport and compare it with the size of terminals there.
Each pier is capable of servicing one wide bodied aircraft, or two single aisle airliners, or up to four smaller commuter aircraft. There are seven piers in the initial opening stage. The current terminal wings will be extended to provide several more piers as part of the first expansion. The initial capacity is about that of Canberra and GoldCoast airports combined (10 million passengers per year).
Gates can swing from domestic to international use, but international flights will operate mostly from the Southern piers, while domestic flights will operate mainly from the northern end. Initially there will be a sheltered walkway from the northern most pier for boarding commuter and budget flights from the tarmac.
Eventually there will be two parallel runways, fitted with over 70 of those piers in four interconnected terminals, in a large 'H' pattern, with one and eventually two metro line stations at its centre. The eventual capacity will then be significantly larger that Sydney Airport (82 million passengers per year) or about the same capacity as London Heathrow Airport, which has a similar runway layout
All that info is easily available online. If you want to see the initial layout search for WSI Airport Site Layout 10MAP. For the eventual layout, search for WSI Airport Site Layout 82MAP.
@ thanks for the info but they probably should of done the dual runways and terminal expansion when they initially built it, would make more sense
@@GlenAnderson71 I've heard people say something like that before, but I disagree.
There is a limited amount of resources (especially relevant skilled personnel) available to build infrastructure at any one time. You have to decide what your relative priorities are (the old 'guns and butter' issue).
Any individual major project that can be built in stages, should be built at a pace to match rationally anticipated needs, with further stages done as those needs start to actualise. By all means build in some margins, as unexpected demands can sometimes occur.
Getting ahead of that means other projects (hospitals, education, other transport, residences etc.) are unnecessarily delayed or neglected, because the resources are not available.
The counter argument is a belief that building at a big scale is always cheaper. I don't believe that is valid as infrastructure is meant to be productive. Build something before it is likely to be needed means part of it will sit idle, perhaps for decades, and costs money to maintain. Building expansions later may sometimes appear to cost more in $, but much of that is because of the changing value of the dollar, not its real cost.
Aviation is a tightly budgeted industry. Excessive infrastructure has to be paid for, and in this case it ends up in higher air fares and airport charges. It makes an airport uncompetitive and it loses market share. It's the royal road to creating a white elephant.
It is of course a matter of balance. You need to do it big enough and fast enough to get appropriate scales of economy; but not so fast as to create under-utilised results that cost money without getting an appropriate return.