RDU International Airport

[ctl]

Absolutely, ULI would propose that RDUAA develop the CONRAC site for commercial purposes instead of wasting it on a CONRAC. The view is that enough parking already exists at RDU and that space for rental cars could be reclaimed from the parking garages by running up the price to park in the garages and forcing some people to park in the outlying lots, which get very low utilization these days compared to 10-15 years ago before the garages were built.

 

As a frequent user of the airport, I think this proposal is madness. 

[DanRNC]

This is what you do things on the cheap which seems to be a prevalent theme in the area.

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2014/05/rdus-new-terminal-1-adds-200-seats-in-concourse.html

[Jones_]

Seems like terrible planning/engineering period. 

[ctl]

Don't know whether it was an oversight, a delay in getting the 200 additional seats that were just installed, or a deliberate decision by RDU to see if they could get away with pushing passengers into the restaurants that lease space from RDU.

 

In any event, the new count of 578 seats is a reasonable number for the five gates that Southwest/AirTran are using. Most of their aircraft (the 737-700 and 737-800) seat 143 and 175 people, respectively. Not everyone will get a seat if the aircraft are full, but that's the case throughout Terminal 2 also.

[DanRNC]

This building should have been demolished and everything should have been consolidated into one building from the get go. I don't even see the purpose of having 2 noncontiguous buildings other than making people loop all the way around to drop off/pick passengers up. 

[ctl]

Could T2 have been built larger? Somewhat. The northeast end of T2 already extends as far as it can without encumbering taxiways C and D which cross International Drive on bridges. Relocating C and D would have been very difficult because of how the northeast end of runway 5L/23R is situated. On the southwest end of T2, there was probably room for an additional 8 gates (four on each side) although the tradeoff would have been destruction of an air cargo building. Beyond that, T2 would have problems with taxiway E which, again, would be really expensive to move. 

 

And to handle the additional volume of passengers, the security areas, check-in areas, baggage claim areas, curb areas, etc of T2 would have required expansion.

 

I don't know for certain, but my guess is that RDU did evaluate consolidating all operations in a larger T2 but decided against it.

Edited May 16, 2014 by ctl

[Green_man]

Seems like terrible planning/engineering period. 

 

As an aside, this would be the fault of the architect, not an engineer.  Many times, architect's take the glory away from engineers - its only fitting that they are assigned their share of the blame.

[orulz]

I don't know for certain, but my guess is that RDU did evaluate consolidating all operations in a larger T2 but decided against it.

They did, and Southwest said "No way." They didn't want to pay the fees. So RDU built them a lower-budget facility. Since T1 is basically purpose-built, presumably most aspects of it were approved by Southwest.

After the old, hastily built concourse extensions, plus the 1955 terminal, are demolished, there will probably be room to expand the terminal in the future it's needed.

[ctl]

And the more I think about it, the drop-off/pick-up area in front of T2 might have been the constraining factor in how large T2 could have been designed. Pushing all RDU passengers through the same set of doors would have required more curb space. Unfortunately the parking garage built in 1986 for what was then Terminal C doesn't provide much horizontal clearance for a broader roadway, and horizontal expansion of the road in the other direction would have eaten into T2's floor space. Consequently the curb area would have to have been made longer, and this would have increased walk distance quite a bit. That said, if you look at how the upper roadway ends at the southwestern extent of T2, you can see where the architects and engineers might have been thinking about a longer upper roadway at some stage of the design process.

 

Orulz also indirectly raises an interesting question: was Southwest culpable for the inadequate gate seating in the remodeled T1?

[Richhamleigh, DC]

Norwegian, Icelandic, WOW, Aer Lingus...RDU should have landed at least one of them by now.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2018/10/04/lufthansa-austin-nonstops-frankfurt/1522543002/

 

[ctl]

Apples-and-oranges... Lufthansa is not a low-cost airline like the ones you've quoted. Of the three international airline alliances that business travelers are likely to use, two already serve Europe from RDU. The alliance that doesn't is Star (United, Lufthansa, etc). Eventually they will come here, but American and Delta are flying widebodies over the pond every day from RDU and that's tough competition for the high-dollar tickets.

For a low-cost airline, the problem is getting the right aircraft. RDU is too far away from the UK or continental Europe to operate any model of the 737.  It's right on the edge for Ireland, although it could be used for Iceland. In terms of modern, fuel-efficient aircraft the next step up in size is the 787... but that's a lot of seats to sell in order to reach the break-even point.

What the low-cost airlines need is a new plane with the capacity and the range of the 757, but neither Boeing nor Airbus has such a plane. The Airbus A321LR comes close, and Aer Lingus will begin flying A321LRs next year. The question is, will they target east-coast and midwest airports larger than RDU.

As for Norwegian, they are losing money at an alarming rate. Last month they said they will increase frequencies to U.S. cities they already serve instead of adding new cities.

Nonstops between RDU and China have the same problem. To fly that far, you need a big aircraft... but a big aircraft is a money-loser unless you can sell lots of seats.

 

Edited October 6, 2018 by ctl

[Richhamleigh, DC]

23 hours ago, ctl said:

Apples-and-oranges... Lufthansa is not a low-cost airline like the ones you've quoted. Of the three international airline alliances that business travelers are likely to use, two already serve Europe from RDU. The alliance that doesn't is Star (United, Lufthansa, etc). Eventually they will come here, but American and Delta are flying widebodies over the pond every day from RDU and that's tough competition for the high-dollar tickets.

For a low-cost airline, the problem is getting the right aircraft. RDU is too far away from the UK or continental Europe to operate any model of the 737.  It's right on the edge for Ireland, although it could be used for Iceland. In terms of modern, fuel-efficient aircraft the next step up in size is the 787... but that's a lot of seats to sell in order to reach the break-even point.

What the low-cost airlines need is a new plane with the capacity and the range of the 757, but neither Boeing nor Airbus has such a plane. The Airbus A321LR comes close, and Aer Lingus will begin flying A321LRs next year. The question is, will they target east-coast and midwest airports larger than RDU.

As for Norwegian, they are losing money at an alarming rate. Last month they said they will increase frequencies to U.S. cities they already serve instead of adding new cities.

Nonstops between RDU and China have the same problem. To fly that far, you need a big aircraft... but a big aircraft is a money-loser unless you can sell lots of seats.

 

Norwegian is flying from Austin, TX, further from Europe than RDU.  They may be in trouble financially, and AUS may not work for them, but I don't see the difference between RDU and AUS markets other than NC does a mediocre job at best selling itself as a destination.  Aer Lingus has renewed its commitment to Bradley, with the help of subsidies until the BDL - DUB become profitable.

[ctl]

Austin has a Heathrow nonstop, as do we. Austin does not have a Paris nonstop, but we do. One could argue the forthcoming Austin-Frankfurt nonstop is essentially catch-up to our Paris nonstop. 

Things to remember about Norwegian's service to Austin: it's Gatwick (pro's and con's), it's only 3 days a week, and it goes on hiatus from October 28 to March 1. Given the financial status of Norwegian, whether it will actually restart in 2019 is anyone's guess. 

Aer Lingus would be the best option for RDU, I think, because it's a relatively stable operator and excellent same-airline connections can be made at Dublin to the remainder of Europe. Furthermore, on the way back, Dublin is a U.S. pre-clearance point... meaning that a flight arriving from Dublin would not have to clear CBP at RDU. That's a big plus for Aer Lingus. But this is contingent on allocation of the A321LRs.

I don't agree that RDU does a mediocre job. They have been focused on getting China and better service to the U.S. west coast. I agree with those priorities.

Edited October 8, 2018 by ctl

[RiverwoodCLT]

Lufthansa servers Charlotte and will be up start  using A350 soon on all routes here.   Charlotte metro has 194 German  companies in it metro. Plus we get a lot of German compaies in upstate SC.  We have 3 flights a day to Germany.  Charlotte is in the process of planning for a 12,000 feet runway.

Where does Raleigh stand on the number of German companies.  It takes a lot of people to fill up a plane every day.  Does Raleigh have that for everyday flights.

AA has pull its fights to China out of Chicago and moved them to Dallas.  It was late going into China, it has a hard time make their China route work.

To get a far east aline to your airport on the east coast, you also need at less a 12,0000 feet runway.

As it looks now,  you will not see any far east airline coming to North Carolina any time soon.

RDU has has come a long way to bring a nice airport, it will take time to add overseas fights.  In 20 years you may not reconignize RDU because of growth.

 

[Richhamleigh, DC]

On 10/7/2018 at 8:48 PM, ctl said:

Austin has a Heathrow nonstop, as do we. Austin does not have a Paris nonstop, but we do. One could argue the forthcoming Austin-Frankfurt nonstop is essentially catch-up to our Paris nonstop. 

Things to remember about Norwegian's service to Austin: it's Gatwick (pro's and con's), it's only 3 days a week, and it goes on hiatus from October 28 to March 1. Given the financial status of Norwegian, whether it will actually restart in 2019 is anyone's guess. 

Aer Lingus would be the best option for RDU, I think, because it's a relatively stable operator and excellent same-airline connections can be made at Dublin to the remainder of Europe. Furthermore, on the way back, Dublin is a U.S. pre-clearance point... meaning that a flight arriving from Dublin would not have to clear CBP at RDU. That's a big plus for Aer Lingus. But this is contingent on allocation of the A321LRs.

I don't agree that RDU does a mediocre job. They have been focused on getting China and better service to the U.S. west coast. I agree with those priorities.

For the record, I didn't say RDU does a mediocre job selling itself, I said "NC does a mediocre job selling itself as a destination".  We've handed our film and TV industry to Georgia for example, which is millions of dollars in free advertising and promotion.  Access between Raleigh and Charlotte is better for travellers who aren't driving, but getting to our primary tourism destinations in the mountains and the coast are still a challenge.  Imagine intrastate rail linking RDU and CLT to Asheville and Wilmington.

[ctl]

NCDOT has taken preliminary steps on passenger rail service to Wilmington. There are two feasible routes from Raleigh. On one of them, NCDOT funded construction of a new connection between railroad lines at Pembroke. Its primary motivation was to improve freight access to the Sunny Point military shipping terminal and the port of Wilmington, but it would also be vital for passenger trains if they run that way. For the other route, NCDOT has done three things. They purchased the deteriorating Goldsboro station and stabilized the structure pending a complete renovation. They purchased about 25 miles of right-of-way that CSX abandoned in the 1980s and have protected it from encroachment. They purchased a block of land in downtown Wilmington and have preserved right-of-way to reach it. All we need is half a billion dollars from the NC General Assembly. There's no indication such money is forthcoming anytime soon.  

Asheville is a different story. The crossing of the Eastern Continental Divide by rail is scenic but it's also very slow because of the meandering route and the tight curves. The best that can be done by rail (unless you want to spend several billion dollars on a new tunnel) is 1 hour 20 minutes between Asheville and Old Fort, which takes 30 minutes on I-40. East of Old Fort, it's theoretically possible to make the railroad 79 mph for passenger trains except in cities, but again you'd need about half a billion dollars and you'd still have a leisurely schedule. Nevertheless NCDOT did preserve the extant stations in Marion, Morganton, and Old Fort. 

[NcSc74]

On 10/11/2018 at 9:13 PM, Phillydog said:

For the record, I didn't say RDU does a mediocre job selling itself, I said "NC does a mediocre job selling itself as a destination".  We've handed our film and TV industry to Georgia for example, which is millions of dollars in free advertising and promotion.  Access between Raleigh and Charlotte is better for travellers who aren't driving, but getting to our primary tourism destinations in the mountains and the coast are still a challenge.  Imagine intrastate rail linking RDU and CLT to Asheville and Wilmington.

True words.  

[ctl]

In the current climate on Jones Street it's a bloody miracle that NCDOT was given the money to continue expanding Charlotte-Raleigh train service. There is one additional frequency to be added in 2019 or 2020 and then Charlotte-Raleigh will be "done" for a while -- except new stations in Charlotte, Lexington, and Hillsborough. There are longer-term plans to increase top speed of the trains from 79 to 90 mph. 

The decision of Asheville vs Wilmington as the next target is inherently political.  

[ctl]

Not an earthshaking announcement, but Air Canada will start daily RDU-Montreal service next summer. It's unclear whether the flights will be permanent or seasonal. They are also up-gauging the existing three daily flights to Toronto. 

Back in the boom years of Nortel, Canadian Airlines (now defunct) briefly operated nonstops RDU-Montreal and RDU-Ottawa. Air Canada has flown RDU-Toronto since 1996, again motivated originally by Nortel whose corporate HQ was in a Toronto suburb. 

[InitialD]

I guess right now Air Canada is using little CRJ regional jets on RDU - Toronto? When you mean up-gauging do you mean a larger plane?

[ctl]

Since inception of RDU-YYZ, Air Canada has used a 50-seat CRJ-200. They're changing to a 76-seat Embraer E175 which offers business class and a few rows of extra-legroom seating in economy.

[ctl]

On 10/5/2018 at 11:20 PM, Phillydog said:

Norwegian, Icelandic, WOW, Aer Lingus...RDU should have landed at least one of them by now.

One fewer in the mix: Icelandair will acquire WOW, which has been struggling financially. The next shoe to drop will be Norwegian

[KJHburg]

Frontier adds 8 more flights and several new destinations from RDU.   https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2019/01/07/frontier-announces-8-new-rdu-nonstops.html?ana=e_me_set1&s=newsletter&ed=2019-01-07&u=oAaDx%2B74FoP4qOJ%2By4AU6dhJPpc&t=1546889363&j=85886101

[KJHburg]

Spirit Airlines announces 7 new flights from RDU its first.

https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2019/01/15/spirit-airlines-to-debut-at-rdu-with-seven-nonstop.html?ana=e_trig_bn_breakingnews&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTldKaU9UTTFOakk0TURaaCIsInQiOiJlTDEzWTYyUlVzYnlhV2JPM3BsVzJyRXVKcWU4RWFOWisxUG4wUmQrdzFJcmlheHhLN3dSUDRON2l2bWhVR1g1SVhVTWRwUkZEbG14ZWNiNkdvS1N4c2I0Y04yZm1Rb2tvOTRlUEV0Zm5vVGdjXC9jRStmZVdDaXpUOVwvRDBsOW40In0%3D

[KJHburg]

New dual brand Hilton and Homewood Suites 11 story 278 room hotel planned near RDU according to Business Journal.

https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2019/01/28/developer-renews-plans-for-dual-branded-hotel-at.html?ana=e_du_prem&s=article_du&ed=2019-01-28&u=oAaDx%2B74FoP4qOJ%2By4AU6dhJPpc&t=1548726205&j=86315571     subscriber article

""With the new plans, the hotel developer is seeking to construct an 11-story building with 278 hotel rooms on property located just off Highway 540, next to Raleigh-Durham International Airport.""