Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[videtur quam contuor]

Do the airlines pay CLT for use based on gates, TO, planes, passengers, or some other metric?

I understand more passengers raise income with regard to retailers, services and such. 

[Miesian Corners]

The first (west) elevated crosswalk between the terminal and parking garage is well underway. I'll try and snap a couple of photos this afternoon. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Miesian Corners
Added photos

[xapostrophe]

I noticed in the Atrium today that they are pulling out the trees.  and it appears they are sealing off the holes in the floor.  So, no more trees.  

[JRCLT]

The first (west) elevated crosswalk between the terminal and parking garage is well underway. I'll try and snap a couple of photos this afternoon. 
http://content.invisioncic.com/x329420/monthly_2023_01/F63C137D-C948-4FAE-887B-45FEFDBD9A06.thumb.jpeg.646ae62709f170abdd80d3125be4744f.jpeg
http://content.invisioncic.com/x329420/monthly_2023_01/9CAFB63A-ABBD-439D-BB53-A8AE5AFFE80D.thumb.jpeg.33280b06e23b9a15b990d98c0e4c939b.jpeg
http://content.invisioncic.com/x329420/monthly_2023_01/A031484D-8066-4D9D-9DA1-1FF653379CD2.thumb.jpeg.5c0deec4a3c406bbe0cb44801d2e9ae6.jpeg

Wow! These trusses are what civil engineers (Structural to be more specific but we all get general knowledge) are all about haha. Might send these to one of my structural professors and see what he thinks lol. (If you don’t mind me sharing your awesome pictures ofc!)

[Poo Diddy]

14 hours ago, JeanClt said:

Wow! These trusses are what civil engineers (Structural to be more specific but we all get general knowledge) are all about haha. Might send these to one of my structural professors and see what he thinks lol. (If you don’t mind me sharing your awesome pictures ofc!)

Yeah they're so cool.  Check out the Grand Rapids Airport canopy.  That's where the architects drew inspiration from.

[KJHburg]

From Twitter just now

FAA has issued ground stops at 
@iflyCHS
, 
@FlyMyrtleBeach
 and ILM Wilmington until 2:45p due to “national security initiatives” aka the Chinese spy balloon tour of South Carolina. 

 

 

 

[LKN704]

It looks like AA has canned CLT-San Jose, CA. It's no longer in the schedule. Likewise, CLT-Ontario, CA looks to be suspended for the Summer. Last flight is in May, service is scheduled (as of now) to resume the last week of October. 

More interesting/concerning, it looks like CLT's Canadian network on AA got a big slash.

This is the current Toronto Schedule:

3x A319, 2x CR9=536 seats/day

Service come April:

4x CR9=304 seats/day

Current Montreal schedule:

2x A319=256 seats/day

Service come April:

2x CR9=152 seats per day

I can't figure out the reason for the drastic service cut. Both Toronto/Montreal maintained relatively high frequencies during the pandemic, and for several months CLT-YYZ/YUL were the only flights on mainline aircraft operated by a US carrier to Canada. 

I suppose it could be a mistake/filing error, but odd. 

Edited February 5, 2023 by LKN704

[Miesian Corners]

On 2/4/2023 at 7:11 PM, LKN704 said:

It looks like AA has canned CLT-San Jose, CA. It's no longer in the schedule. Likewise, CLT-Ontario, CA looks to be suspended for the Summer. Last flight is in May, service is scheduled (as of now) to resume the last week of October. 

More interesting/concerning, it looks like CLT's Canadian network on AA got a big slash.

This is the current Toronto Schedule:

3x A319, 2x CR9=536 seats/day

Service come April:

4x CR9=304 seats/day

Current Montreal schedule:

2x A319=256 seats/day

Service come April:

2x CR9=152 seats per day

I can't figure out the reason for the drastic service cut. Both Toronto/Montreal maintained relatively high frequencies during the pandemic, and for several months CLT-YYZ/YUL were the only flights on mainline aircraft operated by a US carrier to Canada. 

I suppose it could be a mistake/filing error, but odd. 

I assume loads were dismal. The only reason AA upgaged the flight from regional to mainline is due to pilot shortages at Eagle. I guess they've now sorted that out. Anecdote: I was on the flight last week to YYZ. Plane was empty both directions.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Miesian Corners

[videtur quam contuor]

Is there a map or chart somewhere that identifies the area of height limit for structures in the flight paths for CLT? Some kind of radius or ellipse maybe?

[TCLT]

1 hour ago, tarhoosier said:

Is there a map or chart somewhere that identifies the area of height limit for structures in the flight paths for CLT? Some kind of radius or ellipse maybe?

The exclusion areas are trapezoid shaped. Their size and height limitations are defined by FAA regs. I cannot find a full CLT safety zone map published online, but the EA for the fourth parallel runway shows what appears to be the Zone A area for just the proposed fourth runway. Here's also a map for MSP that shows the shape of the zones for comparison. Zones A and B would be most relevant to any potential development (like an elevated rail) across the ends of the runway, so stick those shapes at the ends of our runways.

[videtur quam contuor]

Thank you. 

I was thinking of the area near the airport where taller private structures are limited or proscribed. Or is there such a limitation? (Surely there is)

This came from some investigation of the Austin airport runway incursion Saturday and a mention was made about height limits for nearby structures for  takeoff and landings. 

edit: added "for structures"

Edited February 6, 2023 by tarhoosier

[TCLT]

7 minutes ago, tarhoosier said:

Thank you. 

I was thinking of the area near the airport where taller private structures are limited or proscribed. Or is there such a limitation? (Surely there is)

This came from some investigation of the Austin airport runway incursion Saturday and a mention was made about height limits for nearby structures for  takeoff and landings. 

edit: added "for structures"

Pretty sure the building height limits would be derived from those regs. The height or slope requirements would dictate how tall anything could be in the protection zones. But I did stumble upon this report from Kimley Horn about the potential CLT Destination District and it has a figure (that's unfortunately barely legible) that shows the maximum developable height limits around the airport based on those regulatory requirements. Looks like most of the area between I85 and the airport would be limited to 80-120 feet tall or so with some areas in between the runways and/or closer to I85 able to go higher. The elevation drop north of the center and western runways really helps max building height.

[videtur quam contuor]

6 minutes ago, TCLT said:

Pretty sure the building height limits would be derived from those regs. The height or slope requirements would dictate how tall anything could be in the protection zones. But I did stumble upon this report from Kimley Horn about the potential CLT Destination District and it has a figure (that's unfortunately barely legible) that shows the maximum developable height limits around the airport based on those regulatory requirements. Looks like most of the area between I85 and the airport would be limited to 80-120 feet tall or so with some areas in between the runways and/or closer to I85 able to go higher. The elevation drop north of the center and western runways really helps max building height.

Thank you. This is what I was wondering. The Austin comment mentioned the Southwest pilot in Austin needed to achieve 400 feet for clearance which appears to be the highest limit indicated here. 

Something extra in your pay packet this week.

[xapostrophe]

On 2/6/2023 at 5:21 PM, tarhoosier said:

Thank you. This is what I was wondering. The Austin comment mentioned the Southwest pilot in Austin needed to achieve 400 feet for clearance which appears to be the highest limit indicated here. 

Something extra in your pay packet this week.

One thing you can assume is any article about aviation is likely full of incorrect information.   As a pilot I have no idea what they are talking about with the 400 feet comment.

[TCLT]

On 2/6/2023 at 5:21 PM, tarhoosier said:

Thank you. This is what I was wondering. The Austin comment mentioned the Southwest pilot in Austin needed to achieve 400 feet for clearance which appears to be the highest limit indicated here. 

Something extra in your pay packet this week.

3 hours ago, xapostrophe said:

One thing you can assume is any article about aviation is likely full of incorrect information.   As a pilot I have no idea what they are talking about with the 400 feet comment.

I believe the 400-foot height is the limit for when a pilot can make a turn after departure. As in you must get to 400 feet above the ground or higher before turning. I think that has to do with the potential for obstacles (terrain or structure) outside of a straight line in the first couple miles past the runway, but I don't know enough about the whole piloting thing to say for sure. Also not sure how universal that restriction is. In any event, this likely wouldn't have been an issue at AUS specifically (it seems like there's less than 100 feet of elevation gain anywhere south of the departure runway 18L). But procedures are procedures and pilots aren't likely to deviate from them unless there was no choice and I doubt the Southwest crew was aware of how close the FedEx plane was to them so they probably wouldn't have made any abnormal maneuvers on their takeoff.

[elrodvt]

Not sure what they're talking about. But in that situation there are no hard and fast rules - the pilot does what she thinks is right. 

[xapostrophe]

On 2/8/2023 at 8:02 PM, TCLT said:

I believe the 400-foot height is the limit for when a pilot can make a turn after departure. As in you must get to 400 feet above the ground or higher before turning. I think that has to do with the potential for obstacles (terrain or structure) outside of a straight line in the first couple miles past the runway, but I don't know enough about the whole piloting thing to say for sure. Also not sure how universal that restriction is. In any event, this likely wouldn't have been an issue at AUS specifically (it seems like there's less than 100 feet of elevation gain anywhere south of the departure runway 18L). But procedures are procedures and pilots aren't likely to deviate from them unless there was no choice and I doubt the Southwest crew was aware of how close the FedEx plane was to them so they probably wouldn't have made any abnormal maneuvers on their takeoff.

Most departures the airlines operate only have obstacle clearance performance data with no turns below 400 ft.  Some airplanes have a limitation with this.  Usually it applies to using the autopilot for turns.  However, not sure of the relevance in that article.  

[LKN704]

Reputable AA observer JonNYC is reporting that there is a rumor that AA may make a late announcement and resume Charlotte-Barcelona this summer. 

I can't really see it, as it's a little late for summer transatlantic route announcements (the peak season starts in less than two months) and I believe the route was strongly supported by the cruise industry, and I am not sure if that traffic has entirely returned. 

If true, AA would operate nine daily flights to Europe this Summer, the largest transatlantic schedule ex CLT since US attempted Lisbon/Brussels/Manchester in Summer 2012 and flew 11 peak day departures to Europe.

[CltFlyer]

A big day for news in regards to air service.

On July 1st Lufthansa will begin sending the Airbus A340-600 once again (the really long plane with 4 engines for those less aviation affluent).

It will re-introduce first class on the CLT-Munich market for Lufthansa and be the first time the A346 has regularly served CLT in nearly a decade.

Also, on May 5th.  Spirit will be starting flights to LAX (Los Angeles)!  They will be up to 10 daily flights to 8 destinations (Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, New York- Laguardia, Nashville, Dallas, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles).   No official announcement but the flights are bookable on the Spirit website.

 

Also, I didn't see it posted, but on February 6th  CLT posted an update on A North Part 2.  The shell is progressing nicely.

 

[LKN704]

That's awesome news, and I believe that this is the first time CLT has had nonstop service to the West Coast on a carrier that hasn't been affiliated with AA or US. 

I also think that this route has the potential to withstand the JetBlue/Spirit acquisition, unlike their recent adds of CLT-DFW, etc. JetBlue has been desperately attempting to build a presence in the LA Basin, and Spirit has a respectful route network ex LAX. Although the DOJ just filed a lawsuit on the acquisition, I still believe the merger will go through. 

Regarding Lufthansa, the late aircraft up-gauge is somewhat odd and I imagine that it has little to do with Charlotte. It looks like Lufthansa is pulling the A350 off most of their North American long-haul routes ex-MUC. Despite the A346 being larger, the seating capacity is virtually the same as the A350. However, the 2-4-2 configuration is more comfortable in Economy on the A346 than the 3-3-3 on the A350.

The plane is due to be retired within the near future, so if you have never flown on the type (and wanted to experience using the john in the basement of an airplane thanks to the lower deck lavatories), now is a good opportunity to do so. 

Edited February 18, 2023 by LKN704

[KJHburg]

Construction photos update from CLT social media on the new front canopy structure.  

Looks great so far.  

[LKN704]

Piggybacking off of CLT-LAX, it looks like Spirit will also start CLT-BOS on 9 August:

Flights are loaded on their website but inventory is not available. I would expect inventory to open within the next few days.

[BarrenLucidity]

22 minutes ago, LKN704 said:

Piggybacking off of CLT-LAX, it looks like Spirit will also start CLT-BOS on 9 August:

Flights are loaded on their website but inventory is not available. I would expect inventory to open within the next few days.

Hope the next add from one of the other carriers is a SFO add. AA is basically gouging that route at the moment. 

[csweet]

On 2/18/2023 at 10:06 AM, LKN704 said:

That's awesome news, and I believe that this is the first time CLT has had nonstop service to the West Coast on a carrier that hasn't been affiliated with AA or US. 

I also think that this route has the potential to withstand the JetBlue/Spirit acquisition, unlike their recent adds of CLT-DFW, etc. JetBlue has been desperately attempting to build a presence in the LA Basin, and Spirit has a respectful route network ex LAX. Although the DOJ just filed a lawsuit on the acquisition, I still believe the merger will go through. 

Regarding Lufthansa, the late aircraft up-gauge is somewhat odd and I imagine that it has little to do with Charlotte. It looks like Lufthansa is pulling the A350 off most of their North American long-haul routes ex-MUC. Despite the A346 being larger, the seating capacity is virtually the same as the A350. However, the 2-4-2 configuration is more comfortable in Economy on the A346 than the 3-3-3 on the A350.

The plane is due to be retired within the near future, so if you have never flown on the type (and wanted to experience using the john in the basement of an airplane thanks to the lower deck lavatories), now is a good opportunity to do so. 

When did Spirit add CLT-DFW?

LH's 346 flies routes with high levels of business traffic, hence the 18-J configuration. The 359 has less premium seating, which explains the up gauge.

[CarolinaDaydreamin]

11 hours ago, BarrenLucidity said:

Hope the next add from one of the other carriers is a SFO add. AA is basically gouging that route at the moment. 

You'd think United would want to connect Charlotte to their network from SFO, especially with a Lufthansa flight. Maybe when Charlotte has more flyers using SFO to connect to Asia via United.