People mover hit the dock at Dulles this afternoon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please can we just let these stupid things die now? They’re a scourge and an embarrassment.

In today’s news about the accident they mentioned that Trump’s people want to do just that and that is one thing I think we can all agree on. That would be the second positive travel improvement (the first one is that we don’t have to remove our shoes - finally!!!) and if they do that, they can rename it Trump International for all I care - very fitting name for this 1960s antiquated monstrosity.

You do realize there is a process for this kind of thing, right? It's not just "get rid of that thing"? 25 million people move through Dulles every year, you need to come up with replacements, which take years and years. In fact, there is a planning process to do exactly that going in right now, and a part of it is under construction and opening next year.

https://www.flydulles.com/about-airport/master-plan/dulles-international-airport-master-plan

Just because that yahoo says some random thing, it doesn't mean he is the first one to think of it, or that others aren't hard at work on that very thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always hated those things.

I hate that you enter and exit through the same door, so people (who have ridden them before and know) step inside and then wait right in the entrance, instead of going all the way back.

Yeah, this is a thing. It doesn’t bother me when I’m going from terminal to the gates, but getting off an international flight, this is a real issue.

For going from gates to C/D terminal the train is an option over the mobile “lounge.” It is a bit of a hike to the D gates, so this might not be the best option for all.

I like Dulles. From its iconic main terminal building and the fact you can almost anywhere in the world, it’s a great airport. While it’s a great sirport, it’s also an outdated mess. C/D is a dump and getting to those gates, mostly C is a mess. I know there is a plan to fix this, but it’s many years too late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please can we just let these stupid things die now? They’re a scourge and an embarrassment.

In today’s news about the accident they mentioned that Trump’s people want to do just that and that is one thing I think we can all agree on. That would be the second positive travel improvement (the first one is that we don’t have to remove our shoes - finally!!!) and if they do that, they can rename it Trump International for all I care - very fitting name for this 1960s antiquated monstrosity.

This is my problem With MAGA. Do you think “his people” are the first ever to think about updating the system? How absurd. There have been so many proposals over the years to replace the people movers. It’s a billion dollar project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"mobile lounge ".

What a name

Well, that was a part of Saarinen’s 1950s vision of the “airport of the future” - they were originally designed to take passengers directly from check-in counters to their plane in a “relaxing atmosphere of a lounge”. You can still see all the original docking areas right behind the airlines’ counters - but that was decades before all the screening we have to go through today. Good summary here: https://www.ashburnmagazine.com/features/mobile-lounges-are-a-unique-part-of-dulles-internationals-past/

It seems like OP was going to their domestic flight - still awful but initially I was thinking it happened after deplaning from a transatlantic flight (the only time when I use them), that would have been a terrible “welcome to America” after an exhausting long flight.

Hope OP does not have any serious issues from the accident and will be compensated for the stress and inconvenience.

I think about this all the time. Even if they don't crash, they are terrible "welcome to America" experiences, right! Also the crap bathrooms all airports seem to have in Luggage level. So dismal. With the crap vending machines. Not to mention the filthy customs halls in Newark, Philly, Dulles, east coast etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please can we just let these stupid things die now? They’re a scourge and an embarrassment.

In today’s news about the accident they mentioned that Trump’s people want to do just that and that is one thing I think we can all agree on. That would be the second positive travel improvement (the first one is that we don’t have to remove our shoes - finally!!!) and if they do that, they can rename it Trump International for all I care - very fitting name for this 1960s antiquated monstrosity.

This is my problem With MAGA. Do you think “his people” are the first ever to think about updating the system? How absurd. There have been so many proposals over the years to replace the people movers. It’s a billion dollar project.

Trump said he wanted to get rid of Daylight Saving time too. Once again, a concept of a plan.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

I wonder if a middle ground is not to have them so packed. That is the absolute worse after a long flight to have to cram in there. If they were like 50% full they would be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if a middle ground is not to have them so packed. That is the absolute worse after a long flight to have to cram in there. If they were like 50% full they would be fine.

Please let us know how quickly you can source double the number of vehicles and the staff to operate them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if a middle ground is not to have them so packed. That is the absolute worse after a long flight to have to cram in there. If they were like 50% full they would be fine.

Please let us know how quickly you can source double the number of vehicles and the staff to operate them.

Last long haul flight we came off was a packed 777. Took 25 minutes to clear the boarding area just after we exited the plane, because there was no vehicle immediately available, and it took 3 of them to unload everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if a middle ground is not to have them so packed. That is the absolute worse after a long flight to have to cram in there. If they were like 50% full they would be fine.

Please let us know how quickly you can source double the number of vehicles and the staff to operate them.

Last long haul flight we came off was a packed 777. Took 25 minutes to clear the boarding area just after we exited the plane, because there was no vehicle immediately available, and it took 3 of them to unload everyone.

This. It’s the worst way to return from abroad. Then, even if you have GE, you have to wait an eternity for your luggage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if a middle ground is not to have them so packed. That is the absolute worse after a long flight to have to cram in there. If they were like 50% full they would be fine.

Please let us know how quickly you can source double the number of vehicles and the staff to operate them.

Last long haul flight we came off was a packed 777. Took 25 minutes to clear the boarding area just after we exited the plane, because there was no vehicle immediately available, and it took 3 of them to unload everyone.

This. It’s the worst way to return from abroad. Then, even if you have GE, you have to wait an eternity for your luggage.

For those wondering, the very long term planned solution (15-20 years from now) is essentially a closed system walkway from the A/B concourse to the main terminal building, so planes could unload and people walk through secure corridors to the International Arrivals Building (which I think is also planned to be expanded, understandably). I am not totally sure what they would do with planes arriving to what will eventually be the new C/D concourse. The train will also be extended on the other side to the new eventual C/D concourse. It's in the master plan document. But the big buses are being refurbished now so they can last until all of that is built.

https://www.ffxnow.com/2025/09/22/dulles-mobile-lounges-could-last-another-two-decades-airport-officials-say/

https://mocoshow.com/2025/07/16/dulles-airport-master-plan-phases-out-people-movers-and-introduces-fifth-runway/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"mobile lounge ".

What a name

Well, that was a part of Saarinen’s 1950s vision of the “airport of the future” - they were originally designed to take passengers directly from check-in counters to their plane in a “relaxing atmosphere of a lounge”. You can still see all the original docking areas right behind the airlines’ counters - but that was decades before all the screening we have to go through today. Good summary here: https://www.ashburnmagazine.com/features/mobile-lounges-are-a-unique-part-of-dulles-internationals-past/

It seems like OP was going to their domestic flight - still awful but initially I was thinking it happened after deplaning from a transatlantic flight (the only time when I use them), that would have been a terrible “welcome to America” after an exhausting long flight.

Hope OP does not have any serious issues from the accident and will be compensated for the stress and inconvenience.

My mom and I had one take us out to a large plane for an overseas flight once (maybe 25ish years ago). Until then I didn't realize they also move up and down.

[Anonymous]

Is C/D still “temporary?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is C/D still “temporary?”

Yes, they are building the first portion of the E concourse now- directly above where the train currently stops now for C. The first portion of that is 14 gates expected to be done late next year. Once that finishes, they have the gate capacity to tear down the regional "gates" on the end of the A concourse, so those can be rebuilt as real gates. The extension of E will come next, and then the next concourse south of it, concourse G, will need to be partially built before D and then C are demolished, which won't be until 2040 and 2045. Basically they can't give up the gate capacity at C/D until a WHOLE LOT of new gates are built.

https://www.flydulles.com/Next

Pages 7 and 8 show the 2040 and 2045 proposed/likely layouts.

https://www.mwaa.com/sites/mwaa.com/files/WEBSITE%20-%20Tab%2011.1%20Recommendation%20to%20Approve%20the%20Washington%20Dulles%20International_0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"mobile lounge ".

What a name

Well, that was a part of Saarinen’s 1950s vision of the “airport of the future” - they were originally designed to take passengers directly from check-in counters to their plane in a “relaxing atmosphere of a lounge”. You can still see all the original docking areas right behind the airlines’ counters - but that was decades before all the screening we have to go through today. Good summary here: https://www.ashburnmagazine.com/features/mobile-lounges-are-a-unique-part-of-dulles-internationals-past/

It seems like OP was going to their domestic flight - still awful but initially I was thinking it happened after deplaning from a transatlantic flight (the only time when I use them), that would have been a terrible “welcome to America” after an exhausting long flight.

Hope OP does not have any serious issues from the accident and will be compensated for the stress and inconvenience.

My mom and I had one take us out to a large plane for an overseas flight once (maybe 25ish years ago). Until then I didn't realize they also move up and down.

This actually made me think about my flights to Dulles in the 1990s - I swear the mobile lounges took us directly from the plane to the terminal - or is it my faulty memory? The PP here who seems to know a lot about Dulles (thank you for all your interesting contributions!) might know if it was indeed the case back then or not. It actually felt very cool going up and down with a direct deplaning into the people mover - almost the way Saarinen envisioned it.

On all the recent overseas arrivals we had to go through jetway first to the concourse then load to the people mover - almost defeating their original purpose.