Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport is currently expanding its terminal with the addition of three new air bridges and four additional aircraft parking stands. However, further expansion is being planned once the current project is completed. During a tour of the ongoing construction works, Serbian Prime Minister Djuro Macut revealed some of the airport's longer-term plans, stating, “The airport’s management presented us with future plans, which include opening gates on the opposite side. I also discussed the introduction of new routes and the acquisition of additional aircraft with the management of Belgrade Nikola Tesla Airport and Air Serbia”. The Prime Minister did not clarify whether the planned expansion refers to the construction of new gates on the terminal's curbside, opposite the existing C wing, an option proposed by several bidders during the airport concession process, or to a further extension of the existing A wing.
The ongoing expansion of the airport is on schedule and expected to be completed by May of next year. The airport is adding new gates to the C wing of the terminal building - C15, 16, 17 and 18. While C15 - C17 will feature airbridges, C18, unlike adjacent stands, will be a non-contact (remote) gate, meaning travellers will not use a passenger boarding bridge but will be transported to and from the terminal by bus. The stand is designed to accommodate Code C aircraft, with a maximum wingspan of 36 metres.
The ongoing project also includes the construction of the connecting section of Taxiway T, linking stand C18 to the broader taxiway system and de-icing platforms, development of new service roads to allow circulation of ground handling vehicles and equipment around the new gates, installation of a dedicated stormwater drainage system, including slot drains, underground piping, connections to the main stormwater collector and partial reconstruction of existing drainage infrastructure, installation of external lighting infrastructure, including 22-metre-high lighting masts equipped with LED floodlights, new power supply cables, control systems and obstacle lighting, as well as the construction of apron pavement structures, including reinforced concrete slabs and multi-layer aggregate foundations designed for aircraft load-bearing operations. As part of the upgrades, four new travelators will be installed inside the terminal, two in departures and two in arrivals.
How far fetched would the idea of a second terminal building on the other side be?
ReplyDeleteVery.
Deletenot much, as they're running out of space for further extensions. on C side there is room for maybe 3 more gates, and on A wing there is no space at all, unless they tear down the cargo terminal. so, most likely the new extension will be a new terminal building
DeleteC wing may further expand for few hundred meters, along the service road and towards the highway
DeleteMaybe other side can be used for cargo and maintenance facilities? But it will probably happen after all fields on this side are built up.
DeleteThey should definitely on the other side build new terminal building, if we look back before concession they should have built new terminal
DeleteBuilding gates on the opposite side would be the best thing for BEG. It could be doubled from C9 all the way to C17 thus adding 9 gates and walking time for passengers would remain the same
ReplyDeleteIt would be the worst thing and here is why.
DeleteThere isn't so much room between the terminal and the road behind. That means you could add those gates without expanding the terminal building. So you would double the number of passengers while more or less keeping the same terminal space area. This will create serious crowds and would lower passenger experience which isn't all too great right now.
Best is to get a grip and plan a greenfield investment project where current B stands are. Clear everything and build a brand new, modern terminal.
The cargo terminal won't be demolished, as several million euros have already been invested in its reconstruction. The only realistic option would be to remove the Menzies base, the post office building, and the former catering building, allowing for an extension of Terminal A with up to four additional gates.
DeleteAnd this is going to happen. The A corridor is going to be extended up to A14 with 4 air bridges and a bunch of bus gates.
Delete@09:18
DeleteFrom gates C1 to C9 there isn't space, however onwards there is adequate space to easily support Code C aircraft. In that case, construction would only be needed to widen that section to create waiting areas at the gates. Practically the same seen at airports around the world. The added benefit to this is that it would ease walking distances for a decent amount of connecting pax while the planned new JU lounge would be central to more gates.
A smart investment would also be to expand the C10 remote stand level to allow for a few more bus gates and a couple smaller food and retail outlets.
Within a decade they will need to decide what the long-term future of the airport will be. This redevelopment has been rather jilted. If and when a decision is made to build a completely new terminal it will be interesting to see what space is utilised. The fields to the north of the airport at the far end of Runway 30 have sufficient space and motorway access. However with the railway link etc I suspect few of us alive today will be very young if and when a completely new terminal is constructed.
ReplyDeleteThe Long term plan is to demolish the entire airport and build a new one 10km further west.
DeleteThis was the plan of most companies bidding for the concession. Build C gates on both sides as well as expand A gates.
ReplyDeleteHere is the proposal from Zurich Airport for BEG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pqx5VLH3C8
Looking back, Vinci was not the best fit for BEG. ZRH or ICN would have been better.
DeleteNice to see that. Cheers
Delete@9.21 to me, the Zurich one looks similarly cluttered inside.
DeleteWhat were the plans from other concessionaires? Are there any links to their plans with videos or photos like the example above?
DeleteThe future of passenger aviation in Serbia should be not in expanding BEG continuously but building up INI and KVO. The true indicator of progress in the next few years will be one million pax in INI and a few of hundreds of thousands in KVO.
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
DeleteI'm sure Embraers can operate from KVO in addition to ATRs.
VIE is a no brainer. Northern Italy would work well too, as a start.
'The true indicator of progress in the next few years will be one million pax in INI and a few of hundreds of thousands in KVO.' Sounds nice and is important I agree, but Serbian aviation will always be centered on Belgrade. Provincial aviation is welcome but Belgrade airport needs to be future proofed with proper and detailed planning which, thus far, has been mediocre.
DeleteIt's cool and all, BEG has 20 times more passengers. One gate and one Wizz Air plane in BEG is doing more work than whole of INI. With convenient access to high speed rail maybe they stand a chance as a secondary airport, but not really.
DeleteActually with a high-speed railway to Nis (not that this is actually going to occur in any true sense of the term for a very long time) the reality is that more passengers from the south might be tempted to use Belgrade airport. There are numerous studies and examples of the impact of increased mobilities on secondary/peripheral regions once connected by efficient links. But until such time, I agree that aviation should be supported particularly in Nis. The redevelopment of KVO clearly wasn't financially worth it, however it provides a valuable link to a densely populated region of the country.
DeleteKVO has issues with no fueling available as well as the runway unable to support heavier aircraft. Not all Ejets can use KVO for example. A fair bit of investment will be needed for meaningful operations.
DeleteIf Wizz leaves the airport, it's smart to think about whether we really need more gates. But it's nice to see the cooperation between the airport and AirSerbia (adding more gates could mean new routes or the arrival of other/new airline service providers).
ReplyDeleteThey obviously do think it's necessary otherwise they would not have said it.
DeleteThe volume is a result of demand. Demand clearly exists and is growing healthily, so flight expansions will continue. Wizz will never leave. They might scale down or disband their base. But they’ll never fully surrender a lucrative market like BEG to Ryanair. And for the shortfall, there are plenty of fish in the sea that will fill any potential supply gaps.
DeleteLets hope they do not get forced out. Most of us do not want that. That being said the expansion is needed given the overall trends and its far better to do this now than in five or ten years time. Expansion and adaption has been Belgrade's way thus far and will be going forward as passenger numbers and general mobility to and from the country improves.
DeleteWizz can always use bus remote gates, as on all other airports. But with JU's moderate expansion (3-4 new planes a year), Airport need to expand quickly. And Air Serbia should build at least two interwaves,
DeleteWhat if they meant on the other side of the runway? Where the Radiofar village is currently?
ReplyDeleteCould be
DeleteThat would be a natural location in my opinion. Very easy access to the motorway and leaving the old terminal to be slowly transformed into offices and a hotel etc. But of course a new terminal on a greenfield would be talking well into the billions of euros.
DeleteThe big question is whether this means expansion on the landside (curbside) or simply another extension of the existing terminal. The former would make much more sense in the long run.
ReplyDeleteI would love if SMATSA finally made a decision what to do with the old control tower.
ReplyDeleteIt should be demolished and in that place extend terminal, add more shops, etc...
DeleteIt is a piece of history (just like the demolished YU-AND. It should be repurposed into a restaurant, caffe or a hotel, like they do it in Europe.
DeleteMake the best smoking place in the world?
DeleteMaybe to open ATC museum, with caffe and restaurant. With a lot of transfer passengers, could be airport landmark, with Aeronautical museum.
Delete@12:08 'in Europe' they/we/us have a rather poor record of maintaining infrastructural history. I would like to see it renovated as a viewing platform and cafe. Serbia has the ability to do cafes and restaurants so well. Defiantly not a smoking zone though. That side of the country needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history.
DeleteGarfetched illusion, Cafe on top with zippline to aviation museum 🤌
DeleteThan going back with monorail or something similar.
Does anyone know why Belgrade has terminals A and C, but not B? Maybe the new one could be handed B if and when it eventually pops up.
ReplyDeleteB gates are the remote stands right across from the A gates.
DeleteAh that makes sense. Thank
DeleteYou.
Back in the history, A gates were first built, then adding opposite remote stands which got named B. After that they constructed additional gates and those got named C.
DeleteNew airport, please.SE Belgrade
ReplyDeleteYou mean a new airport south east of the city? I'm not sure if you are familiar with the geography but south east of the city is relatively hilly quite apart from having almost no free land. This is on top of the fact that the current location is excellent in terms of access north to Novi Sad and west along the major road of the region. So nope, this wouldn't be an improvement.
DeleteDelulu idea 🙆♂️
DeleteAnd when are they planning to replace old jetbridges in A pier?
ReplyDeleteAdmin wrote once that they were meant to be replaced when the initial C expansion was done. But then to cut costs they just repainted them. Although I really don't think it's a major issue
DeleteAll in all, new terminal is improvement from the old one. We are not rich country so decision was in the 'realm' of what was possible. Is it perfect, no, but it does the job and it serves AS/others expansion. Growth is clear, numbers do not lie. Airport and AS are success stories vs. past. Period. Do I found it absurd that restaurants/coffeehouses are still not open, yes I do. Expansion after these C gates addition will be tricky as bigger plans/money will be needed, it wont' be ' spit & patch' job.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteAgreed. Its not a perfect job. Far from it. Won't ever win any design awards however it is functional and above all else remains a space through which its possible to navigate rapidly. I think in all discussions regarding airports its forgotten that many travellers (I speak for myself - but I assume many others think similar) do not want to linger at an airport. We want to get in, check-in, pass security and get on board rapidly. On this front I find Belgrade airport really quite good and always always efficient.
DeleteThere is B stand there, B1-B10,they can demolish firebrigade hangar and some other buildings, and built new BTerminal with 20 gates, or to demolish Radio Far and build what they want
ReplyDeleteB gates should be definitely doubled and moving the fire brigade somewhere else. It would allow for effectively 7-8 more gates and a better utilization of current bus gates. Wizz is currenttly using Air bridges in BEG which is not their standard practice
DeleteBehind B stands there is now newly built government hangar. If they demolish fire brigade, they would only be able to build terminal with 6 gates.
DeleteMuch better option is to relocate cargo department and extend A pier to A15.