Remote Stands, Bus Boarding, and Last-Minute Gates: A Tale of Two Airport Systems

This Week’s Focus: The European Airport Shuffle

Ever landed in Frankfurt or Geneva, only to step off the plane onto the tarmac and cram into a shuttle bus? You're not alone. Many European airports skip jet bridges and delay gate announcements—sometimes until just 45 minutes before departure—leaving U.S. travelers puzzled. While the experience may feel chaotic, it’s actually a calculated response to congestion and limited gate space. This week, we unpack the logic behind Europe’s bus boarding and last-minute gate culture, compare it to the predictability of U.S. airports, and ask: is this operational efficiency—or just organized discomfort?

I travel quite a bit year-round, but my most extensive international travel occurs during the summer. Last week alone I connected four times in Frankfurt, and since January, I’ve also connected through Geneva eight times. This week, I attempt to make sense of my (apparently not unique) experience flying through European airports, and compare it to flying through U.S. airports.

Imagine touching down at Frankfurt or Geneva, eager to disembark, only to find that you’re not pulling up to a jet bridge. Instead, you descend a set of stairs onto the tarmac and shuffle into a packed shuttle bus.

Imagine standing at the gate, ready to board with your pre-boarding priority group, only to find yourself, once again, in a bus. You glance at your boarding pass that proudly says “Priority,” but it doesn’t save you any time or give you early access to the precious overhead bins.

Oh, the horror!

If you’ve experienced this, you’re not alone. And you may also be wondering, like me, why airports in Europe do this, and whether it can get better.

So today, we explore the common phenomenon of bus boarding and last-minute gate assignments in Europe, and compare it to a typical U.S. airport experience.

Now, If you’re allergic to first world problems, I suggest you stop reading. But if you’re a regular of this newsletter, first world problems might just be your thing…admit it.

The European Way: Last-Minute Gates and Bus Boarding

If you’re used to flying through American hubs, European airports can feel like a different universe. A crucial detail that often surprises U.S. travelers is that many European airports don’t assign or announce the gate until quite late—sometimes as little as 45 minutes before departure. In fact, airports like Copenhagen explicitly state that gates for intra-Europe flights only appear 45–60 minutes prior to departure. This means you might be pacing around the departure hall (or sitting at the lounge), eyes glued to the flight monitors (or your Flightly app), waiting for that elusive gate number to pop up. It’s standard practice across much of Europe (Paris–CDG, London–Heathrow, Amsterdam–Schiphol, etc.) to hold off on gate announcements until boarding time nears. By contrast, in the U.S., you usually know your gate when you get your boarding pass (even if it changes later).

Why the delay in Europe? One reason is flexibility. In Europe, gates are often in common use—operated by the airport rather than dedicated to one airline. This means a gate is a shared resource: Gate A10 which is serving a British Airways flight at 10am is hosting a SAS or EasyJet flight an hour later. As an aviation forum user succinctly explained, “In the US, airlines often have sole use of a gate, while in Europe the gate is assigned later to whichever aircraft needs it.” The airport assigns gates “on the fly,” (no pun), and by not locking flights into fixed gates, airports can adapt to delays or equipment changes.

There’s allegedly also a commercial reason: keeping passengers in the dark a bit longer encourages them to linger in the central terminal—conveniently surrounded by duty-free shops and cafes—instead of camping at a gate. Several European airports, especially in the UK, have been accused of delaying gate announcements to maximize retail revenue from travelers wandering the concourse (yes, that means your gate anxiety might be subsidizing your last-minute Toblerone purchase. No judgement here…).

Now, once the gate is finally posted, there’s another twist: it might not be a traditional gate at all. Oftentimes, it’s a “bus gate” leading to a remote parking stand. At Frankfurt remote stands and bus boarding are a way of life. This is by design—Frankfurt’s infrastructure relies on a substantial number of remote parking positions where planes park out on the apron and passengers are ferried via bus. In fact, Frankfurt’s Terminal 2 has 8 jetbridge gates but 34 apron stands (remote parking spots) for passenger flights. That means the majority of flights from Terminal 2 require a bus.

And it’s not just Frankfurt. Geneva Airport has so many remote stands that SWISS offers a special bus just for Business Class passengers when their flights park at a remote stand to take them to the terminal faster (as a business class traveler flying through Geneva I can attest that this bus does exist. I can also attest that it is rarely used). Charles de Gaulle in Paris regularly buses passengers, and London Heathrow, despite its modern terminals, often uses shuttle buses for certain stands or during peak times. From Milan to Minsk, from Lisbon to Istanbul, bus boarding is a common sight.

So why do European airports lean so heavily on remote stands and bus transfers? A few reasons stand out:

Capacity and Real Estate: Many European airports are space-constrained or historically didn’t build enough gates for today’s traffic. Rather than endlessly sprawl terminals outward with dozens more jetbridges, it’s cheaper and sometimes faster to park planes on the apron. Frankfurt’s planners deliberately embraced remote stands to increase capacity without making passenger walking distances unmanageably long—keep the terminal compact and simply drive passengers to planes parked further afield (as a bonus, you save on expensive gate infrastructure).

Cost Savings: Operating at a remote stand can be cheaper for airlines. Airports often charge lower fees for parking an aircraft on a hardstand vs. a gate with a jetbridge. Low-cost carriers (like Ryanair or Wizz Air) love remote stands for this reason. Many European airports (often run as commercial enterprises) find it more economical to add bus gates rather than invest in more terminal construction. In the U.S., by contrast, airports and airlines historically invested in lots of gate infrastructure, and airlines lease gates long-term. So there’s less incentive to operate from a bus unless absolutely necessary.

Operational Flexibility: Remote stands give airports incredible flexibility to handle irregular ops. If an incoming flight is late and its scheduled gate is occupied they can just send it to a hardstand and unload via stairs. No waiting for a gate to free up. An airport-controlled stand allocation system can optimize gate usage on the fly, mixing and matching gates or remote bays to whatever flights are present. This dynamic approach contrasts with the U.S., where gates are often pre-assigned to a specific airline and may sit empty if that airline’s schedule has a gap. The European approach squeezes the juice out of every parking position.

Quick Turnarounds: Believe it or not, bus boarding can speed up the boarding/deplaning process in some cases. How? By using multiple doors. At a remote stand, an aircraft like an Airbus A320 or Boeing 737 can have passengers deplane from both front and rear doors simultaneously onto the tarmac (front door via air stairs or a ramp, rear via built-in stairs), with two separate buses loading in parallel. This can cut boarding and deboarding times roughly in half compared to using a single jetbridge. European low-cost airlines exploit this; it’s a key reason Ryanair boards via both ends of the aircraft whenever possible. Faster turns mean flights can stay on schedule or even make up time.

Of course, it’s not all sunshine and roses on the tarmac. From a passenger’s perspective, bus boarding is often a headache. There’s no denying the inconveniences: going down stairs (not great with heavy carry-ons or for those with mobility issues), exposure to the weather (ever tried boarding in Frankfurt during a winter rain?), and the general “cattle car” feel of cramming into a standing-room-only bus.

Priority passengers, in particular, feel short-changed—having paid for business class or early boarding, only to be first on the bus and therefore last off it. As one frustrated flyer quipped (not me), “Priority boarding just…puts you on the bus first? So you’re last to get out. It makes no sense.” The recommendation from experienced travelers is for airlines to provide a separate bus for premium cabins or status customers. Some airlines like SWISS in Geneva with their dedicated Business Class bus have caught on. In Frankfurt, Lufthansa occasionally provides chauffeur-driven Porsche or Mercedes rides for First Class customers—the ultimate skip-the-bus perk—but mere business class mortals must still pile into the same coach as everyone else.

The American Approach: Gates Galore and Rare Buses

So how do U.S. airports compare? In short, American airports and airlines have historically exhibited “allergies” to remote stands.

The vast majority of U.S. airport operations use jet bridges and contact gates for boarding. It’s fairly uncommon to hop on a bus to your plane at a U.S. hub unless something has gone very wrong (like severe weather causing diversions or gate misconnects). There are a few exceptions: Los Angeles (LAX) has a remote commuter terminal and occasionally buses international passengers to hardstands when gates at the Tom Bradley International Terminal are full. Chicago O’Hare has had some remote stands for regional jets in the past. And back in the 1960s, Washington Dulles famously tried to make all gates remote—using “mobile lounges” (giant moving lounge buses that drove out to meet each plane). That concept was largely scrapped in favor of building conventional concourses; the mobile lounges at Dulles are now mostly museum pieces, illustrating how U.S. airports swung from one extreme to the other.

The reasons for the U.S./Europe divide are partly cultural and partly structural:

Airline Control and Fixed Gates: In the U.S., major airlines lease gates long-term and treat them as “their” property. Historically, airlines even owned the jet bridges and furnished the gate areas with branded decor. Delta or American Airlines have a certain set of gates at each hub, and their entire schedule is built around those gates. This proprietary approach made U.S. operations less flexible in swapping gates between airlines, and it also meant that another airline’s flight was unable to pull in, even if that gate was physically free—leading to inefficiencies. Nowadays, some U.S. airports are shifting to common-use, especially for international terminals or smaller cities, but the norm is still that each airline has its roped-off turf of gates. The result is a turf mentality born of hub-and-spoke operations and competition.

Passenger Experience Expectations: U.S. travelers (and airlines) see bus boarding as a downgrade. U.S. airports pride themselves on their amenities and convenience, and having to bus people is seen as something to avoid except when absolutely necessary. There are also safety and legal considerations. In the U.S., if passengers are stuck on a plane on the ground for too long (over 3 hours domestic, 4 hours international), the DOT’s tarmac delay rule mandates that they be allowed to deplane. At a gate, that’s simple: roll back the jetbridge and let people out (even if just into the terminal). On a remote stand, deplaning a full aircraft is more complex. U.S. airlines prefer to avoid scenarios that require large-scale busing, because it can quickly become a logistical nightmare. Additionally, having passengers on the ramp area creates security and safety issues (managing large groups around aircraft, risks of Foreign Object Debris from things people drop, etc.), which U.S. ground crews would rather minimize.

Infrastructure and Space: Many big U.S. airports had the advantage of space (or at least an ethos of building big). They built ample gate space for their peak operations—though today some are reaching capacity. When they do run short, the American solution has usually been to “build more gates” (e.g., new terminals in LAX, Atlanta, Dallas/Ft Worth) rather than lean on bus operations. By contrast, some European airports are hemmed in by city limits or just find it extremely difficult to get approval for new terminals (environmental and community constraints), so the path of least resistance is to attach a bus staircase to that remote corner of the tarmac.

Climate Considerations: A practical note—many parts of the U.S. have extreme weather (scorching summers in Phoenix, blizzards in Chicago, thunderstorms in Florida) that make outdoor boarding unpleasant or unsafe. Of course, Europe has bad weather too, but U.S. airports in extreme climates have been even more motivated to ensure jetbridges for most operations. No one wants passengers exposed on metal stairs during a Dallas lightning storm if it can be helped. (Some European airports mitigate this by using covered stairs or even movable jetbridges on remote stands—a compromise that adds cost but improves comfort.)

Is Bus Boarding Better for Delays?

Now to the big question: Could this mad system of last-minute gates and bus rides actually be better when it comes to flight delays? Surprisingly, there are some real operational advantages that can make the European style a winner in delay management.

No More “Waiting for Gate” Delays: In the U.S., it’s not uncommon to land on time but then sit on the taxiway because your gate is still occupied by another aircraft. This is agonizing as a passenger (so close, yet so far!) and it counts as an arrival delay in the stats. In Europe, that scenario is mitigated: if your planned gate isn’t free, ATC or the airport gate controllers send the plane to a spare remote stand for disembarking. You might actually get off the plane sooner than if you had to wait for a gate. Essentially, planes don’t get stuck circling or idling due to gate availability—there’s always somewhere to park, even if it’s a remote spot. This flexibility can reduce the knock-on delays that occur when a late flight occupies a gate and delays the next flight, and so on.

From an airline’s perspective, being able to put a plane on a hardstand keeps the arrival process on schedule (people get off, connections proceed, etc.), even if it’s not as comfortable as a jetbridge. It’s a form of delay absorption—the inconvenience is shifted to a bus ride, but not onto the timetable. In fact, some airlines and airports will even “push and hold” departing flights: if a flight is ready but there’s an Air Traffic Control hold or some delay for takeoff, they might push the aircraft off the gate at the scheduled time and park it remotely until cleared to depart. This frees the gate for the next flight (maintaining on-time departures for the schedule’s sake) and avoids clogging the terminal. While the flight still departs late from the airport, it officially left the gate “on time” —a trick to both improve apparent performance and keep things moving. Airports with collaborative control can do this when they have spare apron space.

Faster Turnarounds = Catching Up Time: We mentioned how remote operations can enable front-and-rear door boarding. This isn’t just a theoretical time-saver—it can directly help an airline recover from delays. For example, a short-haul aircraft that arrives 20 minutes late can potentially still depart on-time if the ground handling is lightning-quick.

Schedule Resilience: Academic research on airline operations has begun to quantify the benefit of having flexible stand options. In one study focused on Frankfurt’s hub operations, researchers found that adding an additional remote stand as a reserve for irregular operations significantly improved delay recovery. In scenarios of heavy arrival disruptions, being able to utilize a spare hardstand for an extra plane yielded an average delay reduction on the order of 65% compared to not having that flexibility. In other words, building in a bit of extra stand capacity—even if it’s not a full gate—makes the hub much more resilient to delays. It allows more parallel processing of aircraft (one being serviced on a remote pad while another uses the gate). Airlines and airports that embrace this dynamic scheduling recover more quickly from disruptions, as delays don’t cascade as badly.

I will be remiss if I didn't mention The Goal and the notion of statistical fluctuations and dependent events. Not assigning gates and using remote stands remove some of the dependency between delays.

To be fair, the U.S. has its own ways of handling delays, and not all involve a bus ride. American carriers tend to pad their schedules (especially for arrivals) to account for taxi delays and other holdups. And if worst comes to worst, they will occasionally tow a delayed aircraft off a gate to a remote parking area to let another flight use the gate—but this is a complex dance that’s relatively rare. The European method just bakes the remote stand option into normal operations, making it a routine tool rather than a last resort.

Maximizing Throughput: By using remote stands, airports can operate more flights in peak hours. Consider an airport like Geneva, which for years had more flights than contact gates. It relied on remote parking for overflow. This allowed GVA to keep growing traffic without waiting for new gates to be built. Its new East Wing finally added more contact gates for long-haul flights, converting some remote stands into proper gates—much to the relief of premium passengers—but GVA still uses bus boarding for many regional flights. In general, European hubs handle more flights per gate per day. More flights per gate means higher efficiency and potentially fewer delays because the airport navigates bottlenecks.

A Personal Note

As a self-confessed priority passenger who frequently flies both stateside and in Europe, I’ll admit: when I see a bus waiting outside my plane door in Frankfurt, my heart sinks a little. I recall gripping the overhead strap as the bus lurches around the nose of a 747, while glancing anxiously at my watch as my connection window steadily diminishes.

But I also think of that time at Newark, when I sat on an arriving United plane for 40 minutes because the gate was occupied. We just sat there…. No amount of elite status could materialize a gate for us. In those moments, I would have gladly taken a bus to anywhere just to get off the plane. That’s when I appreciate the ruthless efficiency of the European model. They’ll get you off the aircraft come hell or high water (or hail or high winds). You might end up jogging through the rain to the terminal bus, but you won’t be stuck immobile on a dead aircraft waiting for a door to open.

From an operations professor’s perspective, it’s clear Europe’s approach isn’t about passenger pampering—it’s about throughput and on-time metrics.

As a priority customer, it can feel like a nightmare (especially when your “priority” gets you nothing but the privilege of being first onto a crowded bus). Yet, when I step back, I see the order in the chaos. By keeping gates unassigned until the last minute, airports like FRA can juggle planes like a game of Tetris, slotting each one in efficiently, without the gridlock.

The trade-off between passenger comfort and operational performance is stark. U.S. airports err on the side of comfort—you generally get a gate, a jetbridge, and a pre-assigned waiting area, but you might suffer more hidden delays (longer taxi times, gate waits, etc.). European hubs often sacrifice a bit of comfort in order to keep things running. It’s a different philosophy. Neither is 100% right or wrong—it’s a matter of priorities.

For those of us who are aviation nerds, the numbers tell an interesting story: Frankfurt, with its “compact” design and remote stands is one of the most space-efficient major airports in the world, handling over 60 million passengers with just two terminals. And Geneva, prior to its expansion, was juggling wide-body intercontinental flights on stands that required busing, something few similarly sized U.S. airports would attempt.

Bottom line: Europe’s gate-less, bus-full airport experience may feel like a throwback to the 1960s, but it’s a modern solution to modern congestion. It’s quantitatively effective, if qualitatively questionable. Meanwhile, the U.S. will likely stick to its gate-heavy ways until passenger volumes or gate shortages force a change.

So next time you’re squeezed onto a bus in Frankfurt, remember: you're not suffering, you're experiencing operational excellence—at least that’s what I tell myself as I lose feeling in my left arm.

PS. I just landed at Newark from Frankfurt, with a one-hour delay because there weren’t enough buses in Frankfurt to shuttle us. But this is N of 1. I also met and spoke with a very nice couple (both Penn alumni) on the shuttle. So, maybe it’s also part of a bigger plan to make sure we are more social.