24

A few other questions have touched on why we don't board airliners from the front and back at the same time. My question is why is it that we choose to board at the front, rather than park the aircraft facing away from the terminal? This question shows that parking backward seems to be unusual. Why is this design not adopted widely?

I have two guesses:

  1. Is it because of the jet blast? But this can be solved by towing the aircraft away from the terminal before using the jet engines.
  2. Because it is difficult to attach the jet bridge without hitting the tail?
Stuck
  • 351
  • 1
  • 2
  • 5
  • @user3528438 About the jet engines, I think that can be addressed by having the plane towed far enough from the terminal before applying thrust. – Stuck Feb 16 '20 at 06:33
  • @user3528438 And about the jetway, what if we connected the bridge to the rear door? – Stuck Feb 16 '20 at 06:34
  • 4
    You propose an interesting point. You might have given the best reason for not doing this in your question. Attaching a ground tug to the aircraft for towing or pushback takes time and personnel. Why would an airport or airline spend that time twice when one of the times the aircraft can move perfectly well under its own power? And, a moving aircraft uses a lot less thrust to keep moving than a stationary aircraft uses to get moving. – Dean F. Feb 16 '20 at 06:34
  • 13
    As far as loading from both the front and the back...many countries operate just that way. When doing this, it always involves some or all of the passengers walking out to the aircraft, right on the apron/ramp. Then, walking up a set of portable stairs. Sometimes, that means taking a bus out to the plane that is parked far away from the terminal. That is how we did it here in the U.S. back in the 40s, 50s, & 60s. I think the American public is now too used to being protected from the elements (rain, snow, heat, cold, etc.) to go back to that. – Dean F. Feb 16 '20 at 06:44
  • 1
    Finally, how do you reasonably and economically design (retrofit) a transom or gangway that takes into consideration the various designs of tail empennages for different airplanes? There is a lot less difference in the shape and position of the doors in the front than the ones in the rear. You can ensure more consistency, compatibility, and mate-ability with most planes by attaching to a front door regardless of plane size or height. – Dean F. Feb 16 '20 at 06:52
  • The passengers want to get out ASAP. Turning round takes time. – user_1818839 Feb 16 '20 at 20:49
  • 13
    Would it be too snarky to answer this with, "Because parallel parking a jet is just too much effort" ? – Ralph J Feb 16 '20 at 23:19
  • 1
    The old satellite concourses at LAX used to have planes park sideways with respect to the terminal walls, but once they were renovated into piers in the early 80s, they were changed to park forwards. – gparyani Feb 17 '20 at 06:24
  • @DeanF. There are still plenty of large airports where that's common. Last time I had a stop in Beijing International (PEK) this is how we moved to our next leg. Ever since I've realized just how luxurious many 'western' airports are. – Mast Feb 17 '20 at 19:50
  • @Mast - Abu Dabi, Doha, Johannesburg, Manila, and Sri Lanka are all that way for their domestic flights. And, they are not exactly small airports. But, I would not call them large either compared to Heathrow, Ohare, and Hartsfield-Jackson. – Dean F. Feb 17 '20 at 20:15
  • 3
    While I applaud the novel idea, it would be incredibly difficult to do this! And then everyone would say "Why don't you do it the much easier and better way?" – Fattie Feb 17 '20 at 21:13
  • Parking nose-to-terminal allows you to start the engines at the gate without jetblasting the terminal. That way, if you find out upon engine start that there's an issue which requires sending the plane for maintenance and using a different plane for the flight, you can simply reconnect the jetway and deplane the passengers. If you parked tail-to-terminal, necessitating pre-engine-start towing, you would have to push the aircraft back into the gate before reconnecting the jetway and deplaning, taking extra time. – Vikki Sep 06 '21 at 17:59

3 Answers3

66

To park a passenger plane with its tail towards the terminal has several disadvantages:

  • it would require a pushback tractor (plus personnel) to do that. Thrust reversers in general are not meant for making the plane go backwards. If it was possible for the plane to go autonomously backwards, it would be extremely = too risky.
  • you would also need the pushback tracktor for leaving the gate, you couldn't use engines because of the jetblast hitting the terminal
  • you could not use the APU because it would scorch the terminal
  • the horizontal tail of some planes might have clearance issues with the jet bridge.
  • last but maybe not least: the upper class travelers. They sit at the front for a reason: they get on and off the plane first. Yes, the business and first class could be moved to the back. Now, I don't know if riding closer to the cockpit rather than the arse of the plane has some intrinsic value, but at least it is usually noisier at the back. So customer satisfaction might take a hit there.

So: twice the hassle with pushback + other issues, with no benefits whatsoever.

Jpe61
  • 28,574
  • 2
  • 75
  • 122
  • 9
    As always, there are exceptions, like London City, for example. – PerlDuck Feb 16 '20 at 10:20
  • These are cases where the airport is not suitable for the planes operating there. It's kinda funny how a plane gets shorter when you park it differently... – Jpe61 Feb 16 '20 at 10:40
  • 8
    In a few weeks I'll be flying from FRA to LCY in an E190. I'll keep you posted as to whether the plane's length changes upon arrival. ;-) – PerlDuck Feb 16 '20 at 11:30
  • 5
    All good answers, jpe. I would add that parking facing towards the terminal gets the impatient passengers off the plane faster. Taking the time to back-in might push this already frazzled group over the edge. – Jim Feb 16 '20 at 15:03
  • 2
    @Jim And first class gets to (inefficiently) board and leave first. – Schwern Feb 16 '20 at 19:38
  • @Schwern I thought of that too, and since you brought it up too, I added it into the answer. Moving the upper classes to the back might not be as simple as thought at first... – Jpe61 Feb 16 '20 at 20:10
  • 7
    The rear of the aircraft is definitely noisier because you get the sound of the jetwash. The wing exit row is about the limit between the "relatively quiet" and "noticeably loud" parts of the aircraft, which is also why "economy plus" is located forward of the wing. – Lawnmower Man Feb 16 '20 at 20:41
  • 2
    @LawnmowerMan related point - the front of the aircraft is "prettier" too, with observation windows, its nicer to look at the front and not the rear. – Criggie Feb 16 '20 at 22:55
  • The downside of sitting at the front is that you are more likely to get killed in a crash. time.com: This Is the Safest Place to Sit on a Plane – Georg Patscheider Feb 17 '20 at 10:04
  • Parking nose in requires that you back out, though. – arp Feb 17 '20 at 20:20
  • 1
    @GeorgPatscheider I notice when I’m sat in first/business that I feel the plane pitching more compared to being sat directly over the CoG or aerodynamic centre where the ride is less... anxiety-inducing. I’m surprised airlines haven’t added a different class section to the middle of the plane and charged more for a smoother ride... – Dai Feb 18 '20 at 01:23
  • 2
    @Dai SHHHHH!!! There are already enough "premium" seats and many airlines charge a premium for exit row seating (since there's more leg room). Don't give them any more ideas to jack up prices of random other seats! – FreeMan Feb 18 '20 at 15:31
  • 1
    @FreeMan The trend seems to be towards having to pay for any seat if you want to pick it before check in... – Jpe61 Feb 19 '20 at 19:37
  • @arp: Yes, but you can at least taxi in under your own power that way. If you parked tail-to-terminal, you'd need a tug for both the taxi in (since most aircraft aren't designed to use their thrust reversers to back up, airport authorities tend to frown on drifting large jetliners across the ramp, and doing the airplane equivalent of a handbrake turn tends to be rather hard on the aircraft) and the taxi out (since jet blast would do bad things to the side of the terminal). – Vikki Feb 25 '23 at 14:49
18

I worked at an airport for 3 years. We're under a very strict time table when an airplane lands. An aircraft arriving and departing is called a "turn" and our turn time is roughly 15-30 minutes depending on type of aircraft. Every moment counts. Even a 1 minute delay will get people from corporate screaming at my manager for answers. My manager in turn, would then scream at us.

Parking an aircraft so it's tail faced the building would be a massive increase to our turn time. It would take a lot more trouble to take a push back up to the awaiting aircraft, hook it up, tow it back into position, then wait for engines to shut down and APU/Ground Power to come on, than it is to just have it roll up nose first and push back after loading it.

Furthermore, the jetbridge would have to manuever around the wings of the aircraft to get to the door, most bridges are too short for that so it's unfeasable, unless they rebuilt like ALL the jetbridges or used a staircase truck (which eats at turn time.)

The big one is safety. The engines would be pointing their jetblast where the ramp agents come out of the building to do their work. On most turns, the engines turn off and the APU or Ground Power is used. But sometimes the APU is dead or some maintenance requires running engines. We can't do that at the gate if the airplane is facing the building ass-first and finding a safe place to do such a thing may be incredibly difficult and inconveinent, or they can simply park at the gate nose first.

Jonathan Kuhl
  • 821
  • 5
  • 5
  • 2
    Well, the jet bridge would presumably connect to the last door instead of the first, so it would only navigate around the tail. It would still be harder than not having to navigate around anything though. – Jan Hudec Feb 17 '20 at 21:19
9

There are certainly airports where aircraft do face away from the terminal.

One example is London City, where aircraft use their own power to turn themselves round upon arrival. Also, low cost airlines might do this to speed up turn around time - I've seen Easyjet aircraft turn themselves round at Tenerife, although I can't remember if they did this on arrival or departure. Low cost airlines are also more likely to use both front and back doors to speed up disembarking and embarking of the aircraft.

To resolve the issue of jetblast and the terminal in these cases, there is an additional concrete barrier between the aircraft parking and the terminal. This works where the passengers walk (or get a bus) to the aircraft.

As has been mentioned, this does not work where airlines use a airbridge, nor for full service airlines who generally like to use an airbridge, in which case the airbridge(s) have to link to doors on the terminal side of the wings.

Holmez
  • 311
  • 1
  • 5
  • Does Dulles still use those AT-AT things? I know they were capable of hooking up to either the front or rear doors. Granted they came with a whole host of other problems, but it seemed like a good idea at the time... – Darrel Hoffman Feb 18 '20 at 22:15
  • @DarrelHoffman I saw them there I think 3 years ago, but they're apparently only used occasionally now, acc. to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_lounge – HammerN'Songs Feb 18 '20 at 22:32
  • 1
    @DarrelHoffman Oh, man. AT-ATs would be much cooler. United, ANA, and Virgin Atlantic should use those for their Star Wars livery jets. And Air New Zealand should get siege towers to board their Hobbit-themed jets. – reirab Feb 19 '20 at 07:15