Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[san]

16 hours ago, LKN704 said:

Not a fan of this artist's work though (http://vigilism.com/filter/Drawings/). Looking around his website, they remind me of the utopian-style art that was present in subway systems/public works projects in the 1970s/1980s that don't age well. 

This is actually good news for me as I loved the utopian-syle artworks found in subway systems LOL

[LKN704]

I think D (at least the gates that opened back in 2003) is fine. It isn't as nice as some of the newer international terminals in the US, but its workable. The addition of the pendant lights and the LED lights on the building columns that were added in recent years are a welcome addition.

Unfortunately that architectural style with those exposed space-frame roof trusses that were common at airport terminals constructed in the late 1990s/early 2000s (also see JFK Terminal 1 Check-In area, Houston Terminal E Check-In, Fort Lauderdale Terminal 1 Check-In,  Portland Airport (PDX),  JFK Terminal 8, Cincinnati Concourse B, Chicago Midway, etc)  looks ugly/busy now. I know that type of design looked modern at the time, but now every airport with that design looks like a giant warehouse with windows. Not the fault of CLT, as that was what was fashionable at the time. Concourse D's (and E for that matter) just look kinda bizarre with the spiderweb of HVAC shafts intersecting with the trusses. 

The original plans (see below) of the lobby expansion were to have the space-frame roof style with trusses, but they quickly abandoned it for the current design, which is what most airports seem to be building now, with not a space frame truss in sight. 

Anyway, back to D, I don't think the problem is lack of gates, but rather lack of FIS space. 

[JRCLT]

I think D (at least the gates that opened back in 2003) is fine. It isn't as nice as some of the newer international terminals in the US, but its workable. The addition of the pendant lights and the LED lights on the building columns that were added in recent years are a welcome addition.
Unfortunately that architectural style with those exposed space-frame roof trusses that were common at airport terminals constructed in the late 1990s/early 2000s (also see JFK Terminal 1 Check-In area, Houston Terminal E Check-In, Fort Lauderdale Terminal 1 Check-In,  Portland Airport (PDX),  JFK Terminal 8, Cincinnati Concourse B, Chicago Midway, etc)  looks ugly/busy now. I know that type of design looked modern at the time, but now every airport with that design looks like a giant warehouse with windows. Not the fault of CLT, as that was what was fashionable at the time. Concourse D's (and E for that matter) just look kinda bizarre with the spiderweb of HVAC shafts intersecting with the trusses. 
The original plans (see below) of the lobby expansion were to have the space-frame roof style with trusses, but they quickly abandoned it for the current design, which is what most airports seem to be building now, with not a space frame truss in sight. 

Anyway, back to D, I don't think the problem is lack of gates, but rather lack of FIS space. 

Is this the current design?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[csweet]

https://www.airportprojects.net/clt-capacity-ea/

 

Well great news, the terminal(s) and runway expansions are going through the EA phase with new renderings in the attached link. Interesting notes: 

-Satellite Terminal

-Wrap around taxiways

-Illuminates the construction of the next A terminal and hardstands

[teeg]

7 hours ago, csweet said:

https://www.airportprojects.net/clt-capacity-ea/

 

Well great news, the terminal(s) and runway expansions are going through the EA phase with new renderings in the attached link. Interesting notes: 

-Satellite Terminal

-Wrap around taxiways

-Illuminates the construction of the next A terminal and hardstands

I watched the virtual presentation linked on that page earlier today and thought that they were definitely not going with the satellite terminal, and were also ruling out extending A and further north than the next phase.  Maybe those are not permanently ruled out, but at least not under consideration for 2028. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by teeg
slightly confusing word deleted

[TCLT]

22 minutes ago, teeg said:

I watched the virtual presentation linked on that page earlier today and thought that they were definitely not going with the satellite terminal, and were also ruling out extending A and further north than the next phase.  Maybe those are not permanently ruled out, but at least not under consideration for 2028. 

Yeah that's the impression I got too. The map of the taxiway and ramp improvements clearly leaves a satellite concourse shaped hole though. So it seems CLT still intends to add a linear satellite concourse down the road. It's also interesting that this map shows the B and C extensions with small nubs in the inside ends which I take to mean that the plan is still to eventually connect the extensions to form another parallel concourse and demolish the B/C arms. So at some point many years in the future we might be looking a lot more like ATL.

[LKN704]

IIRC, planning for Concourse A Phase 2 was well underway (recall the renderings released with the Delta Sky Club) and funding was being allocated for the project (it was discussed on this site that the funding was going to be greater than Phase 1 because they were going forward with the new OAL terminal headhouse as well). This project will likely to be the first to go forward once COVID calms down. I was under the impression that was almost shovel-ready. 
 

Years ago, Jerry Orr wanted to build the stubs  at the end of B/C, connect them together and then demolish the rest of B/C, and then construct a satellite concourse. CLT would then have a main terminal concourse, and then two satellite concourses. That plan has fallen out of favor. 
 

The long term plan now is still to go ahead with the stubs, but also build a hammerhead concourse as well. The city looked at making the hammerhead concourse an international facility, but it was determined that CLT did not have the international traffic to justify a dedicated international satellite.  The plan was then to shift the hammerhead for American Eagle operations, but I don’t know how they justify the construction of the satellite terminal when they are still extending E. 
 

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, but the current terminal layout definitely has a lifespan at this point. We cannot just keep adding fingers on to the ancient terminal...it’ll be chaos for ramp operations. CLT should have gotten a SLC-style new terminal makeover. I still believe this will happen, but now because of COVID, it likely won’t happen until 2040-2050 at the earliest.

[Miesian Corners]

On 11/30/2020 at 11:40 AM, csweet said:

I wish that they would expand D to be a much more attractive international terminal. I understand that there really is not anywhere to expand, but there has to be a way to allow for more widebodies in the future. 

Four or five gates on the east side of Concourse C will become widebody/international gates. An underground tunnel will connect them to an expanded FIS hall.

[CLT>]

20 hours ago, LKN704 said:

IIRC, planning for Concourse A Phase 2 was well underway (recall the renderings released with the Delta Sky Club) and funding was being allocated for the project (it was discussed on this site that the funding was going to be greater than Phase 1 because they were going forward with the new OAL terminal headhouse as well). This project will likely to be the first to go forward once COVID calms down. I was under the impression that was almost shovel-ready. 
 

Years ago, Jerry Orr wanted to build the stubs  at the end of B/C, connect them together and then demolish the rest of B/C, and then construct a satellite concourse. CLT would then have a main terminal concourse, and then two satellite concourses. That plan has fallen out of favor. 
 

The long term plan now is still to go ahead with the stubs, but also build a hammerhead concourse as well. The city looked at making the hammerhead concourse an international facility, but it was determined that CLT did not have the international traffic to justify a dedicated international satellite.  The plan was then to shift the hammerhead for American Eagle operations, but I don’t know how they justify the construction of the satellite terminal when they are still extending E. 
 

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again, but the current terminal layout definitely has a lifespan at this point. We cannot just keep adding fingers on to the ancient terminal...it’ll be chaos for ramp operations. CLT should have gotten a SLC-style new terminal makeover. I still believe this will happen, but now because of COVID, it likely won’t happen until 2040-2050 at the earliest.

Concourse A P2 was always intended to be for airlines other than AA. The EIS clearly says the B & C expansions are to accommodate AA and that expanding A is too far for their hub activity. The new gates that  AA recently took on A are so they can shift some operations over when the B & C construction begins, so A  expansion will continue on another track.

The plan (from how its been told to me) is still this (withe runway 4 being 10000ft and the landside development being different):

With the midfield concourse replacing E, and the widebody gates being put into C with the current expansion, and being protected in the B expansion. Also of note is that the have kept in the widening of both B&C with this new EIS which should make them even less crowded than the new 'polish' recently did.

Edited December 4, 2020 by CLT>

[LKN704]

7 hours ago, CLT> said:

Concourse A P2 was always intended to be for airlines other than AA. The EIS clearly says the B & C expansions are to accommodate AA and that expanding A is too far for their hub activity. The new gates that  AA recently took on A are so they can shift some operations over when the B & C construction begins, so A  expansion will continue on another track.

The plan (from how its been told to me) is still this (withe runway 4 being 10000ft and the landside development being different):

 

No where did I say Phase 2 was for AA (hence why I brought up the OAL terminal headhouse). 

[KJHburg]

Had to go out to the airport on business today got some shots of the cranes in the new canopy and the new crown out front.   Inside the terminal seemed busy in the ticketing area.  

[CLTaviation13]

Hey everyone,

I made a short compilation video of my best US Airways/American A330 pictures from CLT over the years. I figured some on here would really appreciate seeing some of those pictures. Figured I’d share it on here. If you do check it out, I hope you enjoy it.

 

 

 

[LKN704]

As discussed earlier this year, the airport went ahead and announced that work/planning would stop on the Concourse A Phase II project and the Concourse D/FIS expansion project due to COVID-19. I had long been under the impression that Concourse A Phase II was almost ready for construction (IIRC construction plans were supposed to start this year), as renderings were released, a call for public artists was completed, amongst other things. The EIS was completed and the FAA granted "finding of no significant impact" on the project Fall 2019.

Someone with more insight in the workings of government construction proposals would know more information, but this site shows that plans/construction documents were published over this summer  (https://www.construction.com/projects/?country=USA&state=NC&query=concourse a expansion), and discloses the cost of each project:

• Concourse A Expansion Phase II ($165,000,000.00) : "Construction Document" stage, published 20 July 2020
• Concourse A Expansion Phase III ($100,000,000.00): "Design Development"stage, published 2 June 2020
• Concourse B Expansion ($460,000,000.00): "Pre-Design Phase", published 2 June 2020
• Concourse C Expansion ( $460,000,000.00): "Pre-Design Phase", published 2 June 2020

I'm not sure if the full details of each phase are public information, but I would imagine if they were truly re-starting a halted construction project they would make some sort of announcement. Seeing the stage that Phase II is in somewhat confirms my suspicion that the project is ready to go. 

I am assuming Concourse A Expansion Phase III is the new landside terminal housing baggage claim/ticketing for non-AA carriers. It's exciting to see that this project is still on the table.

Concourse B/C expansion I am assuming is the construction of the "fingers" at the end of the present B/C. Unsure though why the cost would be almost 3 times more expensive than building the second pier on Concourse A. 

What's confusing to me is why all of this stuff was published in the middle of the pandemic. 

 

 

[TCLT]

1 hour ago, LKN704 said:

Concourse B/C expansion I am assuming is the construction of the "fingers" at the end of the present B/C. Unsure though why the cost would be almost 3 times more expensive than building the second pier on Concourse A. 

Those projects should include the bump out extensions at the ends plus widening the existing concourses. Modifying the existing structures and especially doing it to an active and in use concourse probably explains much of the higher cost. Not sure if the ramp expansion, taxiway realignments, and decommissioning of 5/23 are included in that cost.

[QClifer]

What is going on at the ramp from Billy Graham to the airport rd? They have cleared a lot of trees and moved dirt. I’d this a new entrance to the airport or have to do with the office park next door? 

[LKN704]

38 minutes ago, TCLT said:

Those projects should include the bump out extensions at the ends plus widening the existing concourses. Modifying the existing structures and especially doing it to an active and in use concourse probably explains much of the higher cost. Not sure if the ramp expansion, taxiway realignments, and decommissioning of 5/23 are included in that cost.

Given the costs, I would assume the ceiling height might also be lifted as well? 

I can't recall or could be imagining things, but Boston Logan and/or Minneapolis may have done a similar project as well that took the concourse, and built an entirely new frame over the existing structure that was wider and had higher ceilings.

Edited December 13, 2020 by LKN704

[LKN704]

Delta is dropping CLT-CVG. 

Not surprising, honestly lasted longer than I thought it would. CVG now only has service to Delta hubs/focus-cities, Florida, and BWI/ORD/DFW/IAH/PHL/LAS/PHX/CUN/EWR/DEN. 

[kermit]

1 minute ago, LKN704 said:

Delta is dropping CLT-CVG. 

Not surprising, honestly lasted longer than I thought it would. CVG now only has service to Delta hubs/focus-cities, Florida, and BWI/ORD/DFW/IAH/PHL/LAS/PHX/CUN/EWR/DEN. 

Damn, those rust belt secondary hubs have been completely wiped off the map. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Memphis and, in a previous generation, Dayton. Seems like even O’hare was on the decline pre Covid (but that may have been my imagination). So what did all of those in?   Industry consolidation? Changes in aircraft size/range? Population loss? Operations?

Is Detroit still holding on? Does Delta maintain any of the old Northwest Asia routes from there?

apparently I have lots of questions...

[Rufus]

31 minutes ago, kermit said:

Damn, those rust belt secondary hubs have been completely wiped off the map. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Memphis and, in a previous generation, Dayton. Seems like even O’hare was on the decline pre Covid (but that may have been my imagination). So what did all of those in?   Industry consolidation? Changes in aircraft size/range? Population loss? Operations?

Is Detroit still holding on? Does Delta maintain any of the old Northwest Asia routes from there?

apparently I have lots of questions...

From what I understand, Detroit is still a moderately sized hub, mainly for the auto industry, but also because of the very large Middle Eastern communities around the city. As long as the auto industry is healthy, Detroit will still be a busy airport, just not a major (40m) passenger hub. 

[CLT2014]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

Damn, those rust belt secondary hubs have been completely wiped off the map. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Memphis and, in a previous generation, Dayton. Seems like even O’hare was on the decline pre Covid (but that may have been my imagination). So what did all of those in?   Industry consolidation? Changes in aircraft size/range? Population loss? Operations?

Is Detroit still holding on? Does Delta maintain any of the old Northwest Asia routes from there?

apparently I have lots of questions...

Cincinnati started getting downsized during Delta's bankruptcy in 2005, which kind of started a snow ball effect of ruining the margins at the hub. The 2008 merger with Northwest  accelerated the downward spiral with Delta gaining access to a more modern airport at Detroit in a larger metropolitan area just 260 miles to the north. With the recession, it didn't make sense to operate two hubs so close together so they picked Detroit over Cincinnati. Consolidating the hubs also allowed the merged airline to compliment the strong Asia-Pacific routes Northwest had operated from Detroit with the European flights Delta operated from Cincinnati into one hub that served both effectively. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by CLT2014

[LKN704]

The demise of Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Memphis, and  Cleveland as airline hubs both have their similarities and differences. It's true that all five hubs are situated in rustbelt cities that did not exactly have thriving economies, but this is especially important in the case of Memphis and Cleveland. But the answer is so much more complex than that. Industry consolidation definitely played a part as well, but I think MEM/CLE would all have likely been shuttered eventually with or without consolidation. 

All four hubs were from an era were geography was the single important factor in creating an airline hub, rather than based on market demand/economics. Think about it: CLE/CVG/PIT/MEM were extremely dependent on regional jet/turbo-prop flights to smaller local markets that were generally in economically depressed regions, like CLE-ERI (CO/UA), MEM-MSL (Muscle Shoals, AL-NW), CVG-AZO (Kalamazoo-DL), PIT-AOO (Altoona-US). Airlines eventually figured out that they could either serve these cities from their larger hubs that weren't located in their geographic vicinity (such as AA starting CLT-ERI) or dropped the cities completely as they were no longer economically relevant (MSL/AOO). Once this happened, having CLE/CVG/PIT/MEM made little sense, especially once the fuel costs skyrocketed and regional jet operations became extremely expensive. Once you cut these regional jet flights, it made no sense to feed passengers flying from say Providence RI to San Francisco over CLE/CVG/PIT, as all airlines had hubs where such routes could be just as easily served.

Cincinnati began struggling immediately after 9/11, and the downsizing began during 2005 (as CLT2014 said). DL tried many things to get CVG on track to profitability before the NW merger (SimpliFares, re-banking of flights, cutting flights to obscure marginal destinations that were better served over ATL...think Daytona Beach,  Gulfport). High labor costs at DL's regional-jet subsidiary didn't help either. As fuel costs rose, the CRJ-200 (once the "darling" of the DL fleet, and a mainstay at CVG) became extremely unprofitable and the hub slowly suffered a death by a thousand cuts. The Northwest merger only sped up the process, seeing as DTW was a larger, more profitable hub.

Pittsburgh is interesting because the city isn't as depressed as say Memphis. The high airline usage fees charged by the airport really took a toll on US which was struggling financially at the time. The irony of US's Pittsburgh woes is that they essentially reaped what they sowed. US requested a modern, large, spacious (expensive) connecting terminal be built for them, and got just that (see this ad from the 1990s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpaFgDyjJPE). I just wonder today how much the high costs of the new terminal actually factored into their decision to shutter the hub. Walking through the terminal there is depressing. It oozes this 1990s utopian charm. 

 

[Urban Cowboy]

I just want to say... I really appreciate the posts on this specific thread. We clearly have some very knowledgeable/informed contributors and I love reading and learning about our airport and the airline industry. 

[xapostrophe]

11 hours ago, LKN704 said:

The demise of Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Memphis, and  Cleveland as airline hubs both have their similarities and differences. It's true that all five hubs are situated in rustbelt cities that did not exactly have thriving economies, but this is especially important in the case of Memphis and Cleveland. But the answer is so much more complex than that. Industry consolidation definitely played a part as well, but I think MEM/CLE would all have likely been shuttered eventually with or without consolidation. 

All four hubs were from an era were geography was the single important factor in creating an airline hub, rather than based on market demand/economics. Think about it: CLE/CVG/PIT/MEM were extremely dependent on regional jet/turbo-prop flights to smaller local markets that were generally in economically depressed regions, like CLE-ERI (CO/UA), MEM-MSL (Muscle Shoals, AL-NW), CVG-AZO (Kalamazoo-DL), PIT-AOO (Altoona-US). Airlines eventually figured out that they could either serve these cities from their larger hubs that weren't located in their geographic vicinity (such as AA starting CLT-ERI) or dropped the cities completely as they were no longer economically relevant (MSL/AOO). Once this happened, having CLE/CVG/PIT/MEM made little sense, especially once the fuel costs skyrocketed and regional jet operations became extremely expensive. Once you cut these regional jet flights, it made no sense to feed passengers flying from say Providence RI to San Francisco over CLE/CVG/PIT, as all airlines had hubs where such routes could be just as easily served.

Cincinnati began struggling immediately after 9/11, and the downsizing began during 2005 (as CLT2014 said). DL tried many things to get CVG on track to profitability before the NW merger (SimpliFares, re-banking of flights, cutting flights to obscure marginal destinations that were better served over ATL...think Daytona Beach,  Gulfport). High labor costs at DL's regional-jet subsidiary didn't help either. As fuel costs rose, the CRJ-200 (once the "darling" of the DL fleet, and a mainstay at CVG) became extremely unprofitable and the hub slowly suffered a death by a thousand cuts. The Northwest merger only sped up the process, seeing as DTW was a larger, more profitable hub.

Pittsburgh is interesting because the city isn't as depressed as say Memphis. The high airline usage fees charged by the airport really took a toll on US which was struggling financially at the time. The irony of US's Pittsburgh woes is that they essentially reaped what they sowed. US requested a modern, large, spacious (expensive) connecting terminal be built for them, and got just that (see this ad from the 1990s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpaFgDyjJPE). I just wonder today how much the high costs of the new terminal actually factored into their decision to shutter the hub. Walking through the terminal there is depressing. It oozes this 1990s utopian charm. 

 

The city of PIT tried to play hardball and call US's bluff when they threatened to de-hub PIT...US wasn't bluffing.  Rest is history.   Grew up in PIT.  It was a sad time.  When I was learning to fly, PIT was in the process of being shuttered. That was strange to witness the skies get quieter.

[a2theb]

21 hours ago, CLT2014 said:

Cincinnati started getting downsized during Delta's bankruptcy in 2005, which kind of started a snow ball effect of ruining the margins at the hub. The 2008 merger with Northwest  accelerated the downward spiral with Delta gaining access to a more modern airport at Detroit in a larger metropolitan area just 260 miles to the north. With the recession, it didn't make sense to operate two hubs so close together so they picked Detroit over Cincinnati. Consolidating the hubs also allowed the merged airline to compliment the strong Asia-Pacific routes Northwest had operated from Detroit with the European flights Delta operated from Cincinnati into one hub that served both effectively. 

The fall of CVG is essentially in lockstep with the fall of Comair after the 2005 bankruptcy. I remember every Delta/Comair flight I took out of Asheville to the northeast always connected through CVG pre 2007ish. Of course this was back when AVL was only served by the mainline branded regionals.

 

Between the 2008 NW merger and the 2007 Comair JFK hub/crew base opening supporting east coast operations , CVG was doomed.

Edited December 16, 2020 by a2theb

[TCLT]

Consolidation was the driving factor around the reduction in the number of hubs, but geography and market dynamics really decided which ones closed. Bigger hubs will always be more efficient and more profitable because the more passengers you can drive through a single hub, the lower your unit costs will be. It will also allow you to increase service levels AND connectivity which will help improve revenues. Hubs are very expensive to operate, so when possible an airline will always look to push more traffic through one hub rather than split it over multiple. And for the most part, passengers don't mind slightly inefficient routings (backtracking) as long as the schedule and price meets their needs. Another thing that has helped has been improvements in the aircraft. Today's narrowbodies can fly as far as older widebodies and with almost as many passengers. For example, a modern A321 can fly non-stop JFK-LAX and carry up to nearly 200 people. 20 years ago airlines were flying a 767-200 or similar widebodies on transcontinental routes and that plane carried around 200 people.  A narrowbody is waaaaaay cheaper to operate than a widebody. Similarly, modern regional jets like the E175 can reach any point in the continental US from centrally located hubs like DFW or ORD and most of the country from the coasts. So there's less need for intermediate hubs like MEM or CLE when you can easily and efficiently serve the markets from ATL or EWR or SFO. And to LKN704's point about regional jets being more expensive than mainline jets, funneling more traffic through a single hub makes mainline service more viable since you're concentrating more passengers in one place. Similarly to hubs, larger planes have lower unit costs so if you can fill a bigger plane you almost always prefer it to a smaller plane.

And it also doesn't make sense to duplicate a hub's purpose in the network. Take MEM or CLE for example. In the Delta and United networks, those were primarily serving east/west flows (MEM mostly from/to the southeast and CLE mostly from/to the northeast). Those same flows can be served by ATL and ORD almost as efficiently, but with the benefit of funneling traffic through a bigger hub in a metro area with significantly more local demand. Same reason why LAS and PIT were canned by US in favor of PHX and PHL. CLT and SLC got lucky because there are no other reasonable metros from which to serve their traffic flows. For the southeast, the only other major metro with favorable geography is ATL and no one can hope to compete with Delta there (RDU and GSO could've been competitors before Charlotte's massive growth so we got extra lucky things shook out the way they did). For SLC, the only other option for the mountain west is DEN and United has that locked up.  You can intuitively tell from the maps why the hubs that were cut were chosen. Too close to other hubs that are in more desirable places. The exceptions are hubs that serve a unique or necessary purpose. AA's current hub system has a couple of these. In their network, JFK and DCA seem pretty redundant when you have much larger and more capable hubs in PHL and CLT so close. But those local markets are so massive on their own that it makes sense to run smaller operations focused there in tandem with the more efficient connecting hubs close by. This is the reason United keeps such a large operation in LAX despite having a spectacular hub close by in SFO. The market is too important to not be in.