One of Europe's busiest airports is getting a new £3.6bn terminal next year offering a ‘glimpse into future of travel'
The bustling hub will officially open the new £3.6 billion building in 2026, with details already emerging of what travellers can expect.
4
Frankfurt international Airport is set to open a highly-anticipated new terminal in 2026
Credit: Getty
4
The existing two terminals at Frankfurt Airport are among the busiest in Europe
Credit: Getty
Construction of the ambitious project first began in 2015 with some areas already complete and ready to welcome the public.
The new terminal will feature modern amenities, such as a 6,000-square-metre marketplace, luxury retail spaces, and a variety of dining options.
It will also include a new Sky Line people mover system connecting passengers to the airport's existing terminals in just eight minutes.
Frankfurt Airport's highly anticipated Terminal 3 is set to open ahead of the 2026 summer travel season, with an official date yet to be confirmed.
The terminal is said to be designed for an "unparalleled passenger experience".
Travel experts at Aero Bernie discussed how the building has been "carefully planned to embody Frankfurt Airport's core values of service, quality, innovation, partnership, and commitment".
The terminal's marketplace will include a unique ceiling design, serving as a focal point for passengers.
"Each element of the terminal's design and operation has been crafted to enhance the overall travel experience," travel pros said.
The first phase of the terminal's opening will accommodate up to 19 million passengers annually.
As well as reflecting Frankfurt Airport's commitment to meeting the traveler needs, the terminal also highlights its "dedication to sustainability and forward-thinking infrastructure development".
Frozen in Time: Inside the Ghostly Ruins of Nicosia International Airport
"The transformation of Frankfurt Airport's Terminal 3 offers an exciting glimpse into the future of travel," the experts said.
Architects have made the most of natural light in the space, creating walls of windows and limiting artifical overheads.
They have also integrated practical features such as pipes into the architecture to reduce any eyesores.
Meanwhile, Terminal 3 will also include a variety of diverse dining experiences.
Travellers can choose from everything from quick snacks to fine dining overlooking the airfield.
Top 15 busiest airports in the UK
Here are the 15 busiest airports in the UK by passenger numbers in 2023 London Heathrow - 79.2 million London Gatwick - 40.9 million Manchester - 28.1 million London Stansted - 28.0 million London Luton - 16.4 million Edinburgh - 14.4 million Birmingham - 11.5 million Bristol - 9.9 million Glasgow - 7.4 million Belfast International - 6.0 million Newcastle - 4.8 million Liverpool - 4.2 million Leeds Bradford - 4.0 million East Midlands - 3.9 million London City - 3.4 million
The terminal building will consist of seven levels, with 99 elevators and 89 escalators.
Christoph Mäckler, the architect who designed Terminal 3, spoke about his vision.
"These days airports have become a destination in their own right," he explained.
"In fact, they typically receive more visitors than many city centres.
"This makes it even more important for airports to also perform some of the same functions as cities. We're making this happen in Terminal 3.'
4
Terminal 3 will include a wide range of dining options and luxury retail spaces
Credit: Frankfurt Airport
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
The economic cure to populism
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/Getty If there is one theme that has featured most heavily in these columns over the last four years, it has been the dangers of right-wing populism. The destructiveness of Brexit, the dishonesty of Boris Johnson, the recklessness of Liz Truss, and the authoritarianism of Donald Trump have all been familiar themes. It has to be said, however, that populism seems to be surviving my weekly onslaught. Reform UK leads in the opinion polls. The Conservative Party is led by someone who is half-tempted to turn her party into a fully-fledged populist party and who will likely soon be replaced by someone who will not hesitate in turning his party into a fully-fledged populist party. To the extent that President Trump is running into political difficulties, it is for being insufficiently committed to isolationism and conspiracy theories. The public is angry, dissatisfied with the status quo. There is a market for politicians who can articulate that anger, identity something to blame, and promise simple answers to complex problems. And it cannot be a coincidence that the rise of this type of politics has occurred during a period of economic stagnation. There is much more to populism than this; it is at least as much a cultural phenomenon as an economic one. But it is also surely the case that the attraction of populism in the UK would diminish if, by the time we got to the next general election, living standards were rising and expected to continue to rise. It is, therefore, an option for the Government to focus relentlessly on delivering economic growth as a means of achieving re-election (not to mention the more than incidental benefits to the country). Of course, many factors determine economic growth. Some of them can only be delivered in the long term; some – such as Trump's obsession with tariffs – are largely beyond the Government's control; some come at a very high political cost. Let us, for a moment, assume that the Government is willing to risk these high political costs to deliver higher economic growth. What could it do? Before making a few suggestions, what is not an option is an expanded borrow-to-invest strategy. Our current fiscal rules are already loose, in part to fund higher levels of capital spending. That is no bad thing, but remarkably little of that higher capital spending is going into the most economically beneficial areas, like transport or scientific research. The markets are already nervous about our fiscal sustainability and we have the third-highest debt interest costs of any developed country. If the interest rates on our government debt were at the same levels as Germany, we would be paying £50bn a year less than we do. Rather than borrowing more, a credible plan for fiscal credibility is necessary to get those costs down. Contrary to the fashionable view that austerity is bad for growth, it is the loss of control of the public finances that is the real danger. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This does mean reducing the costs of government both in the short term (the disability benefit bill cannot be allowed to grow at the current rate) and in the long run. For a start, a plan should be announced to get us off the pensions triple lock. Even with spending control, taxes will have to go up. The challenge is that the least unpopular taxes are the most economically damaging. Focusing on the rich goes down well with most of the public but drives away the mobile wealthy. At least a partial retreat on non-doms is necessary, and the idea of a wealth tax should be dismissed. If we need more revenue (and we do), use the main taxes for a broad-based increase. The Government has made some progress on planning but even on this has recently retreated on environmental requirements. The real benefits of planning reform come from increasing the population of the highly productive parts of the country. This requires a substantial expansion of housebuilding in London (where next to no houses are being built) and the Ox-Cam corridor (where we should be massively ambitious), with spending on transport infrastructure focused there too. Ignore the complaints about the Treasury Green Book; we should invest where we get the best return. Economic growth should be prioritised ahead of reducing regional inequality. And while I am being provocatively right wing (at least for a New Statesman column), we should also drop the onerous tax we place on developers that reduces housebuilding, namely the requirement to build large numbers of affordable homes. Just build more homes. Planning is one area where regulations have become too onerous. Rachel Reeves was right to highlight in her Mansion House speech last week that excessive regulation is stifling growth. Her rhetoric needs to be matched by implementation – including in the context of employment rights. Returning to centrist dad mode, what about Brexit? Reduced access to our biggest trading market has proven to be a substantial drag anchor on our economy, predictably enough. The bolder and more ambitious the plans to restore a sensible relationship with the EU, the better. The economic gains will be worth upsetting a vociferous but shrinking minority. Taken together, it would be an agenda that maximises our chances of delivery economic growth and, in the long term, defeating populism. Is it an agenda that a government, especially this Government, could deliver politically? Probably not. It reminds me that, as I conclude the last of these regular New Statesman columns, that it is a lot easier to write about politics than to be a practising politician. [See also: Why is Boris Johnson so scared of Emmanuel Macron?] Related
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
The problem of striking a defence deal with the EU
The UK-EU summit in London in May at which a new relationship between the parties was agreed seems a long time ago now. In fact, it is barely eight weeks, but we live in a world which has supercharged Harold Wilson's mordant dictum that 'a week is a long time in politics'. They seem like aeons now. One major subject at the summit was the EU's financial instrument Security Action for Europe (Safe). This is a fund of €150 billion (£130 billion) which will provide loans for member states to undertake urgent, large-scale defence procurement projects, with the aim of addressing capability gaps and boosting the European defence industry's production capacity. However, Brussels makes clear that 'beneficiary member states will have to carry out, in principle, common procurements involving at least two participating countries to qualify for the loans'. It is now clear that the UK will need to pay a fee to participate in this scheme. The amount has not yet been fixed, but EU diplomats reason that 'since British businesses would receive EU money to create jobs and expand capacity under the scheme, London should recompense Brussels'. France is said to be pushing for a significant contribution, while others, including Germany, are keen not to set the tariff so high that the UK does not participate at all. This should come as no surprise. The prima facie terms of the Safe scheme, initially excluding the US and the UK (between them home to ten of the world's twenty biggest defence contractors), left French and German manufacturers like Thales, Rheinmetall and KNDS at the head of the queue to benefit from new spending. Thales and KNDS, as well as Naval Group and Safran, are, as it happens, part-owned by the French state. In these circumstances, the question of who benefits was not a particularly challenging one. Surely this wasn't supposed to happen? At the summit in May, Sir Keir Starmer said that the UK-EU agreement would 'open the door to working with the EU's new defence fund – providing new opportunities for our defence industry, supporting British jobs and livelihoods'. That was, I argued at the time, one of the main motivating factors behind the agreement. After all, the rules for Safe make it clear: Safe will also allow acceding countries, candidate countries, potential candidates and countries that have signed a security and defence partnership with the EU, such as the United Kingdom, to join common procurements. Alas, there was a brief cautionary note that Britain's participation would be 'subject to a separate negotiation and conditions, including a financial contribution from the UK'. The European Commission's spokesman for defence, Thomas Regnier, told the Financial Times that, under the terms of the agreement, UK-based companies could provide up to 35 per cent of the value of procurement through Safe, but going beyond that would depend on 'an agreement with the EU on the precise modalities on aspects such as budget contribution and security of supply'. This was inevitable. The EU is a fundamentally protectionist organisation which seeks to gain as much advantage as possible for the economies of its member states. That is not a criticism, merely an observation: but it has highlighted the disadvantages of pursuing defence policy through the EU, of which we are not a member, rather than Nato, a dedicated military alliance of which we have been part for more than 75 years. (It is true the overlap between the EU and Nato is not complete: although acting through the latter would include the US, Canada and Turkey, it would exclude the military superpowers of Austria, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus.) The Cabinet Office has offered bland, reality-defying reassurance: 'It is in all our interests for the UK and EU to bring together our unique capabilities and expertise to make Europe a safer, more secure, and more prosperous place'. Indeed so, but perhaps that is a message better directed towards the French government, while there still is one. There have been pious expressions of hope that 'parochial national interests' do not undermine Safe's potential to contribute to Europe's overall security. But this is the EU, the bare-knuckle fight club of national interests. It has weak defence institutions but strong ambitions to accrete more competencies to the centre. And the hard-edged realpolitik of Brussels is showing the relative emptiness of the clutch of bilateral agreements Starmer has concluded. There is a clear choice. What is Europe's overriding priority: building the continent's defence capabilities or strengthening national defence industrial bases? The rules governing Safe effectively choose the latter; that is a matter for member states. But perhaps the British government should not have so eagerly chased a mechanism that was bound to work to our disadvantage. The Strategic Defence Review set out a 'Nato First' policy – perhaps we should have focused more closely on that mantra.
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Popular EU country with 8.7m tourists a year hit with stark FCDO warning
Despite witnessing soaring visitor numbers in recent years, a 'beautiful' European hotspot has been stung with an FCDO warning following its dystopian political direction Brits have been warned about travelling to an increasingly popular European hotspot, following concerning new legislation. Last year, a whopping 8.7 million international tourists flocked to Hungary - lured in by the country's dark history, stunning architecture, and cheap booze. Many holidaymakers will have headed straight to Budapest, Hungary's capital, renowned for its huge thermal spas, underground bars, and plethora of cultural attractions (including the only McDonald's in the world that transforms itself into a nightclub). Here, you'll find the fairy-tale complex of Fisherman's Bastion, the spectacular St Stephen's Basilica, and the powerful Shoes on the Danube Bank memorial. Acclaimed for its low-cost food and beverages, Hungary has become increasingly popular amongst Brits with a slew of major UK airports flying directly to the country - including Bristol, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, London Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. However, on Thursday, July 17, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office updated its advice for LGBT+ travellers, under its 'safety and security' page. The warning comes after tens of thousands defied Hungary's dystopian ban on Pride - spearheaded by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's swiftly implemented law that makes it an offence to hold or attend events that involve the 'depiction or promotion' of homosexuality to minors. While same-sex sexual activity is legal, and Budapest is known for its openness and liberal tolerance - showing affection in public outside the capital could result in 'unwanted attention'. "Hungary has passed legislation allowing the banning of rallies and marches that depict or promote LGBT+ identities to minors," the FCDO states. "Participants could be identified by facial recognition technology and face fines of up to 200,000 Hungarian Forints (approximately £433.71). The Hungarian government classified Budapest Pride 2025 as illegal under this legislation." While the Pride event has officially ended, Brits travelling to Budapest over the summer period should be aware of changing attitudes towards LGBT+ people, and the risk that public affection may garner outside of the tourist-riddled capital. The FCDO also warns that tourists in Hungary can often be targets for 'petty crime', including bag-snatching and pickpocketing. This is more likely to occur in busy places like on public transport, in train stations, at markets, or bustling attractions. "Some bars, clubs and restaurants might charge high amounts for food and drink," the body added. "Tourists have been taken to cashpoints with demands for the money to pay the bill. Always ask to see the menu and price list before ordering food and check your bill carefully before paying." There have also been reports of drinks being spiked, particularly in Budapest's bars. Travellers are therefore advised to always buy their own alcoholic drinks and make sure to 'keep sight of them' at all times.
