Jump to content

uptownliving

Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

Recommended Posts


21 hours ago, CarolinaDaydreamin said:

Gatwick isn't as bad as BWI. Luton is the real leisure/ discount airline airport and its a freezing cold aluminum (al-U-mini-um) dump. BWI= Luton.

https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/09/luton-named-worst-large-uk-airport-for-the-fourth-year-running/

One of my favorite One Foot in the Grave episodes: In Luton Airport, No One Can Hear You Scream (BBC)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2019/Bigger-Better-and-More-Connected-American-Atlantic-Joint-Business-Partners-Announce-New-LondonPortland-Route-NET-ALP/default.aspx

Interesting to see that CLT-CDG/FCO/MAD did not get extended, as they all seem like likely candidates for extended service. CDG was operated year round for 2-3 years, and FCO was initially planned to be year round as well, and then was curtailed to Jan 1, and then cut back to its current schedule.

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a connection in CLT last night that ultimately turned into a 3 hour delay, so I took the delay as an excuse to explore the new construction areas.

The refurbished A1-A13 gates look much better than the B concourse refurbishment, which again makes me wonder if AA was not happy with the way the refurbishment turned out. Interestingly, every AA departure from the A gates seemed to be West coast/Rocky Mountain destination (LAX/SFO/SLC/LAS were the flights boarding) which makes me wonder if that was simply a coincidence or maybe perhaps they were using 36C/18C for all Western departures and that's simply the closest concourse to that runway. 

I connected in CLT from a flight that arrived at E36 (which was simply a door that led to a good 500 ft covered walkway) and headed to the A gates immediately upon arrival. I am quite fit, and while carrying my heavy overnight bag, I was pretty winded upon getting to the A Gates. I wouldn't want to make that hike with kids. I could see the argument for a secure APM system being construction, possibly with stations at the E Rotunda, the D/E Intersection, the Central Atrium, the old A concourse, and the OAL Terminal head house when constructed. AA had an APM constructed at their MIA Concourse, which I have walked the entire length of before (Concourse D) and doesn't seem as long as the walk from the high E gates to A. Maybe the walk at CLT just seems longer because CLT is more cramped and the E Concourse requires going up/down escalators. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I understand the Automated People Mover already planned will operate outside TSA checks serving LYNX, business valet, intermediate parking, and hourly/rental cars.  I'm not sure what can be done between concourses.  The same height issue with LYNX coming up to the terminal would appear to also limit an elevated APM between concourses.  The planned APM outside the terminal will have a low profile close to the ground in space reserved near the hourly deck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, southslider said:

^I understand the Automated People Mover already planned will operate outside TSA checks serving LYNX, business valet, intermediate parking, and hourly/rental cars.  I'm not sure what can be done between concourses.  The same height issue with LYNX coming up to the terminal would appear to also limit an elevated APM between concourses.  The planned APM outside the terminal will have a low profile close to the ground in space reserved near the hourly deck.

Wonder why it can't be on top of the terminal like DFW.    Works there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wonder why it can't be on top of the terminal like DFW.    Works there.

 

That should work fine. The height issue with the silver line comes from where it would have to pass the runways. Height over the terminal shouldn’t matter since no aircraft are approaching or taking off over the terminal.

 

 

E: To add to this, if you look at the construction plans for the terminal reno, there will be tower cranes along the roadway between the terminal and hourly deck. Those will be taller than a rooftop people mover would likely be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most likely solution would be to mount in alongside the concourses, although the whole system it would be a massive construction process (constructing track, stations, station escalators/headhouses, train facility, etc.) that I doubt any of us will see it in our lifetime. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, TCLT said:

 

...The height issue with the silver line comes from where it would have to pass the runways. ...

Seems like a cut and cover tunnel would be a cheap and easy solution here. Its not like there are any obstacles or things to be careful around. I never understood the height excuse. 

Edited by kermit
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like a cut and cover tunnel would be a cheap and easy solution here. Its not like there are any obstacles or things to be careful around. I never understood the height excuse. 


The height is from crossing over the freight rail tracks. Cut and cover wouldn’t be possible since the tracks are active. Not sure the exact reason, but I think tunneling under was either deemed too expensive or unpalatable to the railway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TCLT said:

The height is from crossing over the freight rail tracks. Cut and cover wouldn’t be possible since the tracks are active. Not sure the exact reason, but I think tunneling under was either deemed too expensive or unpalatable to the railway.

OK, that makes a bit more sense, but it also sounds like CATS just not making much effort. A tunnel under the NS tracks (and Billy Graham) should be no more difficult than tunneling 36th street under the NCRR.

The tight curves getting into the terminal area (and the extended run time they will produce) seem like a better excuse -- but those run times would be less of a problem if the line terminated at the airport. A spur to the airport from Wilkinson would have solved the problem. Looking at the air photos its clear the airport (meaning Jerry Orr) really effed up the planning for future terminal access. 

Edited by kermit
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, LKN704 said:

The most likely solution would be to mount in alongside the concourses, although the whole system it would be a massive construction process (constructing track, stations, station escalators/headhouses, train facility, etc.) that I doubt any of us will see it in our lifetime. 

Much like MSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2019 at 7:19 PM, LKN704 said:

The refurbished A1-A13 gates look much better than the B concourse refurbishment, which again makes me wonder if AA was not happy with the way the refurbishment turned out. Interestingly, every AA departure from the A gates seemed to be West coast/Rocky Mountain destination (LAX/SFO/SLC/LAS were the flights boarding) which makes me wonder if that was simply a coincidence or maybe perhaps they were using 36C/18C for all Western departures and that's simply the closest concourse to that runway. 

 

A Con turned out better because workers had access to the space 24/7. On the other concourses, work can only take place for a max of five hours per night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, stiluvclt said:

Greetings KJ, Is there an oxblue webcam or any webcam on CLT construction?

I don't think so but I will check around.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will all airline check in counters remain open during construction or are they going to have to move airline check in counters curbside, double stacked, et...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CLT2014 said:

Will all airline check in counters remain open during construction or are they going to have to move airline check in counters curbside, double stacked, et...?

They'll build the new ticket counters prior to closing the existing ones to accomplish renovation in each area. This video shows how it'll happen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know CLT originally desired the new runway to be either 12,500 or 11,500 feet in length, but the FAA declined to fund such a runway of that length stating that 10,000 feet would serve the traffic/routes/aircraft types that CLT sees appropriately. RDU calls for the construction of a 11,500 foot runway in their newest master plan. What are the odds theirs gets approved at that length?

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LKN704 said:

I know CLT originally desired the new runway to be either 12,500 or 11,500 feet in length, but the FAA declined to fund such a runway of that length stating that 10,000 feet would serve the traffic/routes/aircraft types that CLT sees appropriately. RDU calls for the construction of a 11,500 foot runway in their newest master plan. What are the odds theirs gets approved at that length?

State capitol.  Will probably get it. Even though it's a load of bull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LKN704 said:

I know CLT originally desired the new runway to be either 12,500 or 11,500 feet in length, but the FAA declined to fund such a runway of that length stating that 10,000 feet would serve the traffic/routes/aircraft types that CLT sees appropriately. RDU calls for the construction of a 11,500 foot runway in their newest master plan. What are the odds theirs gets approved at that length?

So dumb layman question here...  What's to prevent CLT from chipping in the extra funds needed for the added ~2K' to get to where they want to be?  If the FAA isn't out of pocket any more for the 10K' portion they're willing to fund, can't the airport pick up the diff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the benefit to a 11,500' or 12,500' runway over a 10,000' runway? Which planes can land on a 11,500' runway, but not a 10,000' runway? I'm guessing it's just the upper end of the "heavies," right? Like the A380, and the 747-400 (and -8).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.