Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[LKN704]

Quite sad. As I have said above, the A330 is a great ride in the back with its perfect 2-4-2 configuration. I had hoped that they would survive, and maybe be reconfigured to serve as a Domestic wide body, but alas not.

I think realistically any TATL route from CLT that could take the A333 can more than likely take a 777, and although the 777 is smaller capacity wise, it does have a larger J cabin. But I definitely think that some routes unfortunately will have to be on the chopping block from CLT, at least temporarily.  Keep in mind that AA is going to start receiving A321XLRs in just three years time, so any routes that are likely to be suspended will either come back with a A321XLR, or come back when they have more slack in the fleet. 

A330 pilots will begin the process to retrain onto other fleet types later this year. I'm optimistic that CLT will get a 777 or 787 crew base sooner rather than later. 

I honestly see our TATL looking like this:

-LHR (2x 777), MUC (1x 777), FRA (1x 777)

I would expect at least one leisure-type route to come back, either MAD/FCO/CDG, but not all three. BCN and DUB are gone for the time being. 

Personally, 4-5 years down the line, I expect AA to place another widebody order. By that time, they would have started to retire their oldest 77Es.

[CLT>]

Here is the video of Brent Cagle's talk with the World Affairs Council of Charlotte.

 

[BarrenLucidity]

9 hours ago, LKN704 said:

Quite sad. As I have said above, the A330 is a great ride in the back with its perfect 2-4-2 configuration. I had hoped that they would survive, and maybe be reconfigured to serve as a Domestic wide body, but alas not.

I think realistically any TATL route from CLT that could take the A333 can more than likely take a 777, and although the 777 is smaller capacity wise, it does have a larger J cabin. But I definitely think that some routes unfortunately will have to be on the chopping block from CLT, at least temporarily.  Keep in mind that AA is going to start receiving A321XLRs in just three years time, so any routes that are likely to be suspended will either come back with a A321XLR, or come back when they have more slack in the fleet. 

A330 pilots will begin the process to retrain onto other fleet types later this year. I'm optimistic that CLT will get a 777 or 787 crew base sooner rather than later. 

I honestly see our TATL looking like this:

-LHR (2x 777), MUC (1x 777), FRA (1x 777)

I would expect at least one leisure-type route to come back, either MAD/FCO/CDG, but not all three. BCN and DUB are gone for the time being. 

Personally, 4-5 years down the line, I expect AA to place another widebody order. By that time, they would have started to retire their oldest 77Es.

I can see MAD coming back sooner as it's a OneWorld partner hub. Beyond that though... Probably going to be a PHL flight

[LKN704]

1 hour ago, BarrenLucidity said:

I can see MAD coming back sooner as it's a OneWorld partner hub. Beyond that though... Probably going to be a PHL flight

Perhaps, but I honestly wonder if the route can handle the extra seats in the premium cabin that a 777 offers, as I get the feeling it will be a while until CLT gets scheduled AA 787 service. I get that CLT-MAD is a Oneworld hub to hub flight, but essentially every realistic Oneworld connection offered through MAD can be offered through BA at LHR, and I have personally never seen that many connections offered through MAD on the AA website. I'm sure there are some, but LHR is the dominant Oneworld connecting point for Europe. Paris and Rome have much more demand from CLT (and from the US as a whole) during the Summer months IIRC as well.

[KJHburg]

from Charlotte Biz Journal twitter about the airport:

Hub chief and national airport ops exec from

@AmericanAir

both praised CLT today, noted that it was third last week in departures (ahead of ATL) — which shows both how hard-hit the industry is as well as CLT's solid showing in the midst of miserable conditions everywhere

[CLT704]

On 5/6/2020 at 4:27 PM, LKN704 said:

I'm optimistic that CLT will get a 777 or 787 crew base sooner rather than later. 

 

[BarrenLucidity]

10 minutes ago, CLT704 said:

 

737 base huh... I wonder what, if anything, that means for the 321s. 

[navigator319]

CLT really could take advantage of this situation possibly and really come out with much more then anyone is currently thinking.

It’s all about costs the next 3 years which is enough time for structural changes in the business model. MIA is safe for obvious Latin American reasons. PHX was in trouble prior to this, but still has some advantages. DFW safe as well. Big losers who should really be worried could ORD and PHL. JFK/LAX. No issues.

[TCLT]

737 base huh... I wonder what, if anything, that means for the 321s. 

It means nothing for the A321s. AA had already been in the process of increasing 737 flying here as part of an effort to upgauge flights. The expedited retirements of several fleets and the permanent change to network structure will mean more 737s here sooner so that sped up what was going to happen eventually anyway, namely a 737 pilot base here. The A321 is still going be a major fixture here and throughout the AA network.

[BarrenLucidity]

16 minutes ago, TCLT said:

It means nothing for the A321s. AA had already been in the process of increasing 737 flying here as part of an effort to upgauge flights. The expedited retirements of several fleets and the permanent change to network structure will mean more 737s here sooner so that sped up what was going to happen eventually anyway, namely a 737 pilot base here. The A321 is still going be a major fixture here and throughout the AA network.

Oh, right, I forgot about the 319/20s being upgauged. 

[KJHburg]

From the Dallas Business Journal concerning AA's international service that is ramping back up.  Important for CLT as we are the 2nd largest hub and this is our easiest gateway to Asia

DFW is American's largest hub, and was one of the few airports in the country to host any international flying in April as world travel ground to a stop amid the COVID-19 outbreak. American had minimal service between DFW and London, and DFW and Tokyo (Narita).

Here's when other international service through American is slated to return to DFW over the summer and into the fall.

• Amsterdam — June 4
• Frankfurt — June 4
• Dublin — July 7
• São Paulo, Brazil — July 7
• Lima — July 7
• Hong Kong — July 7
• Tokyo (Haneda) — July 7
• Seoul — July 7
• Santiago, Chile — Oct. 25
• Buenos Aires — Oct. 25
• Beijing — Oct. 25
• Shanghai — Oct. 25

These flights will not operate this summer:

• Rome
• Munich

Two highly publicized routes to Tel Aviv and Auckland were scheduled to launch this year out of DFW. American delayed the launch of both of these routes until the the back half of 2021.

[LKN704]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2020/05/09/american-airlines-charlotte-hub-pushes-through-crisis-and-will-get-boeing-777s-for-europe-flights/#549230226dee

Not a whole lot of info in the article, but I found it interesting nonetheless that it said traffic in the Mountain states was stronger than other markets according to Delta's CEO.

[CarolinaDaydreamin]

On 5/9/2020 at 11:31 PM, LKN704 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2020/05/09/american-airlines-charlotte-hub-pushes-through-crisis-and-will-get-boeing-777s-for-europe-flights/#549230226dee

Not a whole lot of info in the article, but I found it interesting nonetheless that it said traffic in the Mountain states was stronger than other markets according to Delta's CEO.

Markets that are largely too far away to drive between.

[CLT>]

Silver Line Station at CLT

Too bad no 'destination architecture' for the 'destination district'

 

https://cltairport.mediaroom.com/DestinationDistrictToSpurDevelopment

[Cadi40]

Very exciting, sounds like they’re trying to build a Ballantyne near the airport with a light rail stop. 

[DMann]

I cannot agree with the process of not taking the rail to the airport.  To drop someone with luggage on Wilkinson and expect them to get to the terminal in some other fashion seems fraught to me.  It just sounds like a bad political decision.

[navigator319]

20 minutes ago, DMann said:

I cannot agree with the process of not taking the rail to the airport.  To drop someone with luggage on Wilkinson and expect them to get to the terminal in some other fashion seems fraught to me.  It just sounds like a bad political decision.

This is pretty common.  The plan is for an 'automated people mover' from the silver line to the terminal.   An APM is a monorail type thing.  Seems fine to me.

[stw52]

34 minutes ago, DMann said:

I cannot agree with the process of not taking the rail to the airport.  To drop someone with luggage on Wilkinson and expect them to get to the terminal in some other fashion seems fraught to me.  It just sounds like a bad political decision.

i agree, a half assed job

[CLT2014]

Anything that would be walking distance to the terminal would likely require a tunnel under the runways to make the sharp turns due to the horseshoe shape of the CLT terminal complex. The other requirement might be tall bridges which will violate FAA regulations for height. Does anybody know the minimum right of way for a light rail route and could it fit in a space like the planting strip between the parking garage and airport exit road (currently it slopes so not sure if they could use a retaining wall to hold it up above the parking garage exit. A bridge here will get way too high for the FAA so it will need to run at ground level (a big reason the parking garages are dug down so they remain below required height). 

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by CLT2014

[kermit]

1 hour ago, CLT2014 said:

...Does anybody know the minimum right of way for a light rail route and could it fit in a space like the planting strip between the parking garage and airport exit road (currently it slopes so not sure if they could use a retaining wall to hold it up above the parking garage exit....

11 feet for a single track (slightly more in curves)

https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/transit-lanes-transitways/transit-lanes/side-rail-lane/

I am kinda ambivalent about direct terminal access (as long as people mover headways are in the neighborhood of 2 minutes). Running the Silver Line to the terminal will significantly slow the trip into uptown for Belmont commuters. Like it or not, they are going to be much more numerous than airport travelers.

Having said that, I think CATS and the airport are dramatically overestimating the difficulty of accessing the terminal. The 36th street example shows us that tunneling under the NS tracks is doable. I’ll remain silent on the difficulty of tunneling under the terminal E apron beyond pointing out that its not a runway.

Prepping an LRT terminal route would have been trivially easy if it were planned as part of the recent airport road realignment, I think its significant that the airport did not do that.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by kermit

[tozmervo]

2 hours ago, kermit said:

Having said that, I think CATS and the airport are dramatically overestimating the difficulty of accessing the terminal. The 36th street example shows us that tunneling under the NS tracks is doable. I’ll remain silent on the difficulty of tunneling under the terminal E apron beyond pointing out that its not a runway.

My understanding is that they know full well what it takes to run the train to the terminal. What Keith Parker John Lewis has said is that bridging over Josh Birmingham and the rail line presents an FAA problem with the eastern most runway approach, and tunneling that very significant distance is cost prohibitive. 

I tend to agree with you that I'm ambivalent about this issue. I've been to plenty of airports that have people mover connections to transit and have never found it to be a burden, and it would cause a time burden for daily users west of the airport. Detouring to the terminal off of 74 would add at least 2 miles in track. This could be solved with all of the money in the world, like most things!

Edited May 12, 2020 by tozmervo
my brain was a few years behind.

[kermit]

22 minutes ago, tozmervo said:

My understanding is that they know full well what it takes to run the train to the terminal. What Keith Parker has said is that bridging over Josh Birmingham and the rail line presents an FAA problem with the eastern most runway approach, and tunneling that very significant distance is cost prohibitive.

yea, I think you are right. They know exactly what it would cost, but CATS just doesn't want to run to the terminal so they are playing up the difficulty and cost (e.g. tunneling long distances is not necessary, all they gotta do is get under some roads and one set of tracks). Given the interest they are seeing from Gaston county I am not sure that CATS is wrong to want to skip the terminal in order to prioritize Gaston commuter travel time -- its just that I am not sure CATS is being super honest about their rationale.

The fact that the airport did not build (or just plan for) a cut and cover underpass for LRT when they were rebuilding Josh Birmingham or the parking deck speaks volumes as well -- I don't think the airport wants LRT to the terminal either.

[LKN704]

It's quite clear at this stage that the Silver Line isn't necessarily designed to be an airport rail link, but rather a light rail line connecting Uptown with suburban areas that just happens to stop at the airport.

I have no problem with the APM to the terminal building. Most airport rail systems in North America utilize such a system (Oakland, SFO for all terminals except INTL, JFK, EWR, Eventually LGA, Phoenix, Miami, Eventually LAX, Toronto) and they work well, provided they run fast and at high frequencies. 

I think such a system has the possibility to inhibit some potential riders, like a family who has kids and multiple pieces of luggage, but I don't think that is the target market for the Silver Line. 

The Silver Line is going to have its own right of way similar to the current Blue Line, correct? The rendering above makes it look quasi-street running.

10 minutes ago, kermit said:

The fact that the airport did not build (or just plan for) a cut and cover underpass for LRT when they were rebuilding Josh Birmingham or the parking deck speaks volumes as well -- I don't think the airport wants LRT to the terminal either.

This.

I could be 100% wrong but IIRC once you start tunneling long distances near airport property you can't just have a simple cut and cut cover tunnel, I think the FAA forces you to take a number of security measures to ensure the tunnel areas are blast resistant, further adding to costs. 

[kermit]

15 minutes ago, LKN704 said:

I could be 100% wrong but IIRC once you start tunneling long distances near airport property you can't just have a simple cut and cut cover tunnel, I think the FAA forces you to take a number of security measures to ensure the tunnel areas are blast resistant, further adding to costs. 

I have wondered about this, but I cavalierly assumed that such requirements would only apply for areas under runways and adjacent to terminals (although that is just a guess). Applying these rules to approach roads and parking decks (where there is no security screening anyway) seems a little non-sensical?

The MSP light rail setup has always intrigued me. They use LRT as a connector between their two terminals and trains between the airport stations operate 24 hours, unlike the rest of the blue line. (disclaimer, its been a few years since I have been landside at MSP). I was kinda hoping CLT would take this approach when building a second terminal, but an existing people mover would make more sense.

Perhaps one day we can have a West blvd LRT route (to the River District???) that has a stop directly at a new South terminal?

[CLT>]

1 hour ago, tozmervo said:

I tend to agree with you that I'm ambivalent about this issue. I've been to plenty of airports that have people mover connections to transit and have never found it to be a burden, and it would cause a time burden for daily users west of the airport. Detouring to the terminal off of 74 would add at least 2 miles in track. This could be solved with all of the money in the world, like most things!

Agreed as well.

If you've ever tried to take DART at DFW, even if you arrive in the terminal where the station is it takes a good 15min of walking and ramps to get to the station, I'd much rather have a 2-3min people mover ride and drop down an elevator to the platform. I seem to remember CLE and a few other airports where its a hike to the LRT stations and they're 'at the terminal' for all practical purposes,