CTnative4444

Any updates on the demolition project? Haven't seen anything on the Web since July 15'

Please tell me that they will not include that horrifically gaudy Dunkin Donuts sign with the actual stadium.... Couldn't get one of the insurance giants to have the naming rights....dang it!

Sawhill, I too think Aer Lingus would be a great addition to Bradley. As stated some months ago, it would probably be routed with their 757-200. I would LOVE for Bradley to be one of the 14 airports in the US that snags Ryanair, however, considering that they've already leaked that Chicago, Boston, and New York would be among the cities served....not looking too good.

I see where you're coming from with this, however, not probable. I can counter your idea with a previously said one though....It makes A LOT more sense to have a flight to Frankfurt....Reason being is that Frankfurt flies direct to 9 cities within Poland....and for the most part they are scattered evenly across the country. It would also give the large Italian community ability to fly down to Rome/Milan/Naples etc. There's just more connectivity. Now Jamaica, I could see a Summer Seasonal flight to MBJ working twice a week....for starters

Are they really the Yard Goats now? Please tell me it's not true....

I don't think the cargo numbers at the Rita site are correct. They say that the total amount for 2013 was 254,000,000 lbs. but I was checking the FAA website and their numbers put BDL at 773,000,000 lbs.....HUGE difference. Bradley clocks more cargo than some of the large airports.... Minneapolis, Orlando, and Detroit. How is it that we have more cargo than the Cargo Hubs of Fort Worth, Greensboro, and Columbia....and yet UPS doesn't consider us a Hub?

Does anyone out there know of the website that tells you the O&D between city pairs? I remember looking at it a few years ago and seeing the data for Bradley. There were even pie graphs for cities not served!

When is the ballpark scheduled for completion? Will it completed alone or with other components?

On that note, can anyone speculate as to why SWA hasn't offered non-stop service to LAX yet? They've become the #1 provider at BDL and they definitely have the equipment.

Does anyone know what the required amount of O&D passengers needed to sustain a flight? I ask because I was looking over some numbers and there are 10 cities that we don't connect to, but have 100+ people go to daily. Greater Los Angeles - 449 San Francisco Bay - 302 Phoenix - 199 Nashville - 177 San Diego - 166 Seattle - 135 Austin - 132 New Orleans - 126 Indianapolis - 120 Jacksonville - 114

I came across some interesting stats that made me think about true international travel from Bradley. In Connecticut, there are nearly 200,000 foreign-born immigrants from Latin America; 25,000 Mexican, 20,000 Brazilian, 18,000 Ecuadorian, and 15,000 Dominicans. With those stats, I'm surprised there isn't a direct flight somewhere SOUTH other than Cancun for Spring-breakers. Secondly, there are 32,000 from India and 28,000 from Poland (New Britain), which makes me wonder why there isn't a connection to Europe. All together there are upwards of 500,000 foreign-born immigrants living in CT with ZERO flights available to visit their families abroad, add to that the amount of foreign business that takes place and it makes me truly wonder about why we don't have at least one of the above mentioned flights.

It's great to see the board from the airport really going out there and tackling this one, however, I think if Aer Lingus went through with this idea it would be 2-3 weekly. BECAUSE....I don't see them using an A330 daily to Hartford. 1.) That's 267 people per flight, which is a sizable boost from a 757(flown to Amsterdam). 2.) Since airlines make money off of business class fares, and the aircraft mentioned above is the only one they have with dual-class cabins. 3.) They already have A330 service to both New York and Boston.

So, with the recent announcement of Condor starting flights from PVD to FRA....how badly do we think this will hurt our chances for Trans Atlantic service returning to BDL?

The head of the new board was quoted as it being a part of the eventual Master Plan for 2024, however, I neglected to mention that he had said it was dependent on traffic increasing to a point that would warrant a new runway. He also said, however, that it was favored regardless because many airports are heading away from the crisscross runway scheme and inside have the parallel to allow dual takeoff/landings.

1) The current Master Plan for Bradley involves a parallel runway by 2024. It would discontinue the use of 1/19 and 15/33.... 2) 6/24 is mos def not one of the longest runways in the country. It is only 9,510 ft long with an 986 ft safety zone on the north end. There are at least 50 airports with runways 10,000 ft or greater in America alone. It is, however, on par to be considered wide. It is 200 feet wide while standard is 150. I think my mind will be on hold with the SFO thing until United can prove itself with Houston....maybe put Denver back on there....slowly work West. Icelandair....just don't see it. It would be a welcomed change if it could work, but they don't strike me as a business traveling airline. Could be wrong.

Another thing I failed to respond to earlier was my design got rid of Runway 19....with the exception of the occasional small prop plane it isn't really used. Also had 12,000 FT parallel runway to 6/24 with a 4,000 ft spread (required by FAA) to the northwest. Route 20 would have to be partially altered because a small part of the new runway would pass over route 20....pretty ambitious stuff over here.

Because United used to have non-stop to SFO from Bradley on an A319....before 9/11

JetBlue to LAX sounds nice, but you're not making me a believer....lol I would love to have Phoenix on Southwest, SFO on United, and LAX on Delta.

I have some words for American that would get me banned from this site....so, because I would like to continue viewing these posts I will remain silent. However, I will say that American should just call it like it is and say that the route didn't make them as much money as another possible route can....80% and not high yields....FIDDLE STICKS!!!! What ever happened to the easy "attach" button....how the heck do you load an image on this!

I will have to spruce it up a bit before I post it online....in the mean time....if you go to Google maps....it would be to the southeast of the existing terminal A. Budget rental car and such would be gone....and the USPS and the building there on the tarmac would be gone as well. It makes more sense to do this because instead of building an entire new terminal building....you get the same amount of new gates out of a single new pier....

What you said about Terminal A is true....it does seem that the terminal is made for regional jets, but it can also fit aircraft as large as B767-300 series. From my glance at the formal design plans of the new Terminal B it will have two slots for aircraft as large as 777-200ER or A330-300 (which is a tad bit longer than a 200 series). To give you some math about your height difference....when you get on an A320 the bottom of the cabin door is about 11' 5" from the ground and the plane needs a minimum of 75 feet pavement width for a 180 degree turn....compared to a A330, which has a height of 15' feet and requires a minimum of 146 feet for a 180 degree turn. There are also standards for the distance the nose of a plane will be from the terminal, parking bay lengths, and apron widths based on the planes size....A,B,C,or D. For example, any plane that is 155' or less (Gate type A) has a normal distance from the terminal of 30 ft and needs a taxi-line OFA width of 162 ft, while a plane that is 232 ft or greater (Gate type D) has a distance of 15 ft and requires a taxi-line OFA of 276'. As for taller terminals, yes and no. I have been to airports where they merely raise the height of the gate with a built in jack, however, newer terminals or ones that have gone through considerable renovation do tend to be a bit taller. An example of a taller terminal is in Frankfurt....Terminal 2. This brings me to an idea I had. Yes, Terminal B needs to go, however, I think they should first look into building east of Terminal A. The rental car services will be leaving their locations to the east, which takes care of that hurtle....then move the existing air freight hangars/buildings and BAM!....build a people mover from where southwest desks are to the east and then have a pier at the same angle as the "new" pier....you could build a terminal that fits a total of 19 B737's with the capability to fit 6 B777's leaving space for 9 B737's....(I got bored one day and designed it in my office) I don't see the Delta thing happening anytime soon. I AM waiting to see if Bradley is one of the chosen destinations by RyanAtlantic....one can hope!

Thanks for the info Voice, gave me some of the info I wanted to know....now to just pray they release those designs to the public soon! Second thing....is there any room for growth advancement with the present Terminal A? We could extend the "new"ish tier out to add 2-3 more gates....along with the original A out for another 2....or no?

Are there any renderings of the new rental car facility out there on the web....

Quick question How is it that Providence is close to snagging not one but TWO international flights to europe, but Hartford doesn't seem to even have it in their cards.... The addition of Houston is a great link, but how come the ball is rolling so well for Providence and not for us?

Those number are kinda depressing.... 2005 numbers Chicago O'Hare 397,000 Atlanta Int'l 338,000 Orlando Int'l 284,000 Baltimore 240,000 Philadelphia 216,000