Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[Lloyds5]

If a newly constructed terminal is design with future international conversion in mind, they can easily build out the infrastructure needed so such a conversion is relatively painless. It's done all the time with new construction, leaving space empty or designing storage for conversion, zoning mechanical and fire protection systems, etc.

 Well then if you are going to do all the infastructure/build out work why not just build all the gates as mixed use gates like at BWI's underutilized international terminal, remember CLT is successfull because it is an ultra low cost airport you add all the fixed expense of building out a mixed use terminal and it increases costs to all the airlines

Edited September 19, 2014 by Lloyds5

[tozmervo]

In principal mixed use gates make sense, especially given CLT's knack for seasonal routes. I don't know airport functionality well enough to compare the practicality of converting gates back and forth during the year to the cost of extra square footage to accommodate international service. But generally yes, making every square foot work harder throughout the year means higher returns for every dollar. 

[Lloyds5]

^Rumor has it that GIG was highly profitable, even more so than GRU.

 

Like I said, unless they actually build the concourse to be FIS compatible (with the same type of gates that D has now, with "chambers" separating the gate and the jetway), the concourse won't be an international one. It would be too expensive and consuming to reconstruct several gates, and built an FIS station.

 

IIRC, the people mover is supposed to connect the Main Terminal building with the parking garages and parking lots. There was no plan to link any of the concourses with the people mover.

 

That said, I believe a people mover should be built connecting A satellite-A-B-C-D-E.

GIG was not highly profitable it performed worse than GRU, the reason GIG is coming back for 6 weeks is so US can utilize the  767's which are coming off of PHL- VCE which was schedule to run until January 10 but was scaled back and is ending in late november  and PHL- ZRH which was scheduled to run year round but was made seasonal due to softening demand on the North Atlantic. So US saw the opportunity to run the GIG flights and cherry pick some revenue over the Christmas Holiday since the GIG slots were still available. GiG was a disaster financially for US but the old US wanted to be in Brazil badly so they accepted the losses in the hope the route would develop and become profitable but with AA's profitable flights to Brazil from: JFK, MIA and DFW no need to run the CLT flights at a loss 

[CltFlyer]

We will be able to to tell if they ever attend to use it for international flights by the spacing they allow for each gate and the height at which they build the terminal.  Concourse D is built a bit taller than A, B, and C.  If it is build with big spacing and at the same height as D.  Maybe they do intend to make it an international terminal some day.

[kickazzz2000]

GIG was not highly profitable it performed worse than GRU, the reason GIG is coming back for 6 weeks is so US can utilize the  767's which are coming off of PHL- VCE which was schedule to run until January 10 but was scaled back and is ending in late november  and PHL- ZRH which was scheduled to run year round but was made seasonal due to softening demand on the North Atlantic. So US saw the opportunity to run the GIG flights and cherry pick some revenue over the Christmas Holiday since the GIG slots were still available. GiG was a disaster financially for US but the old US wanted to be in Brazil badly so they accepted the losses in the hope the route would develop and become profitable but with AA's profitable flights to Brazil from: JFK, MIA and DFW no need to run the CLT flights at a loss

Proper syntax and formatting would be helpful.

Here, let me help you get started.

"I am a troll."

Not that hard, huh?

[cltbwimob]

Proper syntax and formatting would be helpful.

Here, let me help you get started.

"I am a troll."

Not that hard, huh?

Actually, his post about GIG (unlike some other posts) is accurate. Doug Parker said it was unprofitable in the Q1 conference call. So as unfathomable as it may be, the post in question is legitimate discourse.

[Lloyds5]

I guess Kickazzz2000 is an English professor now in addition to what his name implies, thanks for the lesson. Actually, most of my posts have been correct like GRU going away, timing was off but it was correct. We will see if my post about major transatlantic capacity reductions happen. If not, I am sure all of you fellow trolls will let me know.. Also, can anybody comment on my earlier question about harmonizing all the terminals with the new terminal such as Carpeting, Tile, Lighting, etc.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Lloyds5

[LKN704]

I heard that GIG was profitable solely because of the cargo carried-but I am happy to be proven wrong.

[Lloyds5]

Actually you thinking is not wrong, Cargo can make a flight profitable. The problem with GIG was the outrageously cheap fares, most of which were connections back to MCO and Florida and the smaller cargo payload capacity. The economics of the 767-200(US flew this aircraft most of the year) is poor versus the 767-300 or Airbus A330 which carry more passengers and has greater payload capacity both of which generate more revenue to cover operating costs. It is my understanding the 200 and 300 have similar operating costs but with the 300 series being larger more revenue generation is possible.  

Edited September 20, 2014 by Lloyds5

[clt29301]

Interesting that only 55 people were on board when a quick look at next week's flights carry a high price and 40 seats are sold(all of 1st class) for Paris in the first 8 -10 rows. If you were that lucky, buy lottery tickets.

As for the terminal, as long as the infrastructure is in place, moving this to an international terminal at some point is not terribly hard to do. Besides, the cost CLT saves up front will more than pay for the cost later, especially considering the money factor. No big deal.

That being said, I do think we are a few years out from needing a dedicated international terminal. But, with aircraft like the787 coming online more, linking Charlotte to more places is economical.

[Lloyds5]

Interesting that only 55 people were on board when a quick look at next week's flights carry a high price and 40 seats are sold(all of 1st class) for Paris in the first 8 -10 rows. If you were that lucky, buy lottery tickets.
As for the terminal, as long as the infrastructure is in place, moving this to an international terminal at some point is not terribly hard to do. Besides, the cost CLT saves up front will more than pay for the cost later, especially considering the money factor. No big deal.
That being said, I do think we are a few years out from needing a dedicated international terminal. But, with aircraft like the787 coming online more, linking Charlotte to more places is economical.

 

 

Sorry duplicate post I cant delete it.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Lloyds5

[Lloyds5]

]
Can't Comment. On next weeks flights to CDG as I won't be traveling. But don't understand your comments about buying lottery tickets? I would think construction costs would increase with time unless we enter a period of deflation. As far as the 787 is concerned who knows from which cities it will be based, if I had to bet I think the 787 would be based at JFK, DfW or LAX. I know the maiden international city pair will be JFK to CDG that has been announced already. But maybe you work at AA in route planning and know for sure that the 787 will be CLT based...

Edited September 20, 2014 by Lloyds5

[cltbwimob]

I guess Kickazzz2000 is an English professor now in addition to what his name implies, thanks for the lesson. Actually, most of my posts have been correct like GRU going away, timing was off but it was correct. We will see if my post about major transatlantic capacity reductions happen. If not, I am sure all of you fellow trolls will let me know.. Also, can anybody comment on my earlier question about harmonizing all the terminals with the new terminal such as Carpeting, Tile, Lighting, etc.

Well, despite your British namesake, you do not always post with the grammatical and stylistic impeccability of The King's English. Sorry, I couldn't resist. (Neither do I)

A couple of more serious points I'd like to make:

1. Most of your posts are not "correct", most of your posts have been speculative in nature and have been neither verified or falsified. The following is a sample list of routes you have claimed would likely meet their end: GIG, GRU, DUB, MEX, MUC, CDG, FCO, BCN, MAN, LIS, BRU. So far, you have only been correct about one of these. Sure both GIG and GRU are gone however we all knew that GIG was gone more than five months prior to your arrival on this forum. It is disingenuous to claim yourself to be clairvoyant when you are posting information that had already been announced. Additionally, many of us believe that BCN, LIS, and BRU were out of left field in the first place and do not expect to see them return either.

Some of the claims you have made have run directly counter to the best intelligence to which we are privy (i.e. claiming MUC would go away despite airline executive's claims that it is highly profitable and can survive without the feed from US Airways; claiming MEX would likely find itself on the chopping block despite the fact that it has some of the highest O&D of any international market from CLT) Some of your numbers seem to be drawn from thin air. Indeed you hardly ever provide any supporting documentation (i.e. claiming that MEX had a 67% load factor; the only aviation intelligence report I could find stated a load factor for this route well above 80%).

2. If I may, I would like to provide a brief history lesson to help you see why many of us have come to the conclusion that you are here for the express purpose of trolling. It was not much more than two months ago you posted for the first time in UP. You followed someone, also a new member here, from another forum to this forum and immediately began harassing that individual once you checked on board. You quickly moved into a back-and-forth argument with nearly every one else on this thread. In instances whereby someone with actual insider information [Miesian Corners] made any sort of comment that countered your doom and gloom perspective, you summarily dismissed their point of view while holding sacrosanct your own rumor-based point of view. In fact, the argumentation got so out of hand that Neo, the head moderator, posted that route speculation should be placed in another forum and that this forum should be reserved for brick and mortar expansions. Most people, perhaps some begrudgingly, chose to abide by the new limitation that was set in place, however you continued to speculate about a number of cuts that you felt would befall CLT. Approximately one month into your tenure here at UP, the unthinkable happened; it was announced that GRU would be discontinued. To your credit, you were right about GRU, however, you used that one instance to vaunt yourself up as if you were the new resident expert in CLT aviation. From there, the speculation continued; blog posts from the John Locke Foundation, arguments made on other forums, and conversations you overheard from the flight attendant's water cooler were and continue to be parroted here. When someone questions your assertions you have been known to a) smuggly reply that you are just keeping the forum fair and balanced, as if this were some sort of extension of Fox News, b) make comments that seem as if you hope to be proven right, or c) accuse people of being unable to accept opposing viewpoints. Point "B" makes it seem like you want to see the demise of CLT. Point "C" is the most preposterous notion one could ever conceive. If you were to peruse and/or post in any other thread besides this one, you would realize that there are many instances on this forum where the contrarian viewpoint is argued. In fact, you can go back 12-18 months in this particular thread and find an individual [AirNostrumMAD] who made many of the same arguments you have made long before you ever became a member. The difference is that he did it in a manner that was respectful and did not lead a single person to conclude that he was trolling. There have been plenty of occasions in which I found I was the contrarian. If you would like to see some examples, browse through the topics on the Knights and Streetcar. Everyone here can accept an opposing viewpoint and can learn something from the diverse array of opinions that exist on this forum; it's part of what makes this forum interesting. One tie that binds us all, however, is our desire to see Charlotte succeed. Your posts do not invoke that same sense of pride and desire to see our city succeed. You act as if it is your duty to temper expectations, and your posts are almost always negative. You also act as if there is some sort of mandate for you to play devil's advocate in order to keep the thread "fair and balanced" as you say. By now, it should be self-evident as to why people accuse you of trolling. Sure you may say that's not your intent and that you hope the airport succeeds, but the recidivist speculation and smug nature of your postings seems to portend a more sinister motive than that for which you give yourself credit.

Regarding the coordination of interiors between old and new terminals, I would not expect interiors to be similar. I imagine the new terminal to be much more modern looking than the old. But who knows, Brent Cagle seems to buy into the notion that the airport should provide a good first and perhaps only impression for those traveling through the airport. I would not be surprised if interior coordination was within the master plan. But for now, it seems as if it's unnecessary, especially if the airport is trying to remain a low cost operation. Speaking of low cost and high efficiency operations, see the hyperlinked article below-

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/local/charlotte-ranks-most-cost-competitive-airport-nort/nhQq3/

Edited September 20, 2014 by cltbwimob

[Lloyds5]

Thanks for your English lesson as well, lets wait and see what happens to: LIS,  BRU, MAN and BCN. These routes have not been added for the 2015 flying season yet. Many will say they were new in 2014 so they are being evaluated but PHL-EDI was new in 2014 and has been added in the reservation system for 2015. I still believe by 2016 we will see CLT to LHR, FRA(1 daily) and MAD, with CDG, FCO and DUB as questionable. Most of the Island flying will remain and I believe MEX will go as CLT-MEX will be a marginal route as compared to the high frequency flights to MEX from MIA and DFW. Also, since this forum is full of professors can someone fill me in on the meaning of the term trolling?  Let me just end this post by saying  even if LIS, BRU,MAN and BCN and one FRA frequency are the only european cuts plus the loss of GRU and GIG and the addition of an LHR flight. This means  approximately 50% of AA's  international trunk routes will have been cut from 12 routes to 6- so you tell me what you think the future of international long haul flying from CLT looks like?  

Edited September 20, 2014 by Lloyds5

[ssh214]

I have been one of the people that likes to talk and discuss about route structuring from Charlotte but I think we have gone way too overboard on this discussion in terms of personal attacks; this is not airliners.net (I could have seen our friends from Miami sling attacks if I wanted to see airline forum fighting).

 

Everyone should be entitled to their viewpoints without fear of repercussion in terms of textual backlash. I for one in no way agree with the doom and gloom scenario Lloyds5 speculates on from the sheer point that the Southeast needs a counterbalance in all facets to Atlanta's airport and Charlotte represents that just as Salt Lake City does with Denver. However, I think to constantly argue with him (even though I even sometimes cringe when I see statements like MEX will be cut, which does not make sense for reasons cltbwimob pointed out) goes against the very nature of this forum which is to discuss the well being of the city of Charlotte. Unfortunately, I will be moving back to Los Angeles within the next couple of months and I will be relying on this forum to keep me in the loop about what's going on in my hometown. I would hate for this forum to be degraded into nothing more then a rumormill mixed with occasional jabs towards one another, which in turn will discourage people from actively participating in discussion and ultimately make this forum disappear. I don't know if you guys have gone to other city pages but the discussion on those is so sparse; Charlotte has way fewer people within the city and there is discussion constantly unlike all of the other bigger city forums.

 

So please, let's try to have some civil discussion; as painful as it may be to hear negative sentiments about the city that I'm assuming we all love let us try to disprove them with true undeniable facts, which ultimately wins any argument. 

[skymiler]

I know it's probably been posted before but can someone give an update with timeline on the different construction projects involving CLT?

Particularly interested in:

Rental Car Facility

New ATC tower

4th parallel runway

Terminal, concourse expansions

People movers etc.

Thanks!

[cltbwimob]

^^^^

Charlotte airport moves forward with new concourse plans

 

By Ely Portillo
[email protected]

Posted: Thursday, Sep. 18, 2014

Charlotte Douglas International Airport is preparing for construction of its new concourse with an environmental review, according to arequest for qualifications released Thursday.

The new concourse will be just north of Concourse A, where rental cars are parked now. Those cars will be moving to the $120 million hourly parking deck in front of the terminal, which is slated to open in November.

On Thursday, the airport said it’s looking for a company to test soil and groundwater at the rental car lot for contamination. The testing will be done in preparation for demolition at the site, which Charlotte Douglas plans to start in early 2015.

The rental car companies at the airport have used the 23-acre site since the 1980s and have underground fuel tanks, lubrication, cleaning and maintenance services on their lots. That means a “high probability exists for subsurface contamination” on parts of the site, Charlotte Douglas wrote.

Charlotte Douglas had originally planned for the new concourse to be a stand-alone facility for international flights. But airport administrators decided to build new domestic gates instead this year, based on the more pressing demand for those.

The new concourse will have eight to 12 domestic gates at first, though it could be expanded or converted to an international terminal later. It’s part of $1 billion worth of upgrades at Charlotte Douglas, from a new entrance road to a complete terminal renovation. Charlotte Douglas is the second-busiest hub for American Airlines, with about 730 daily flights.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/09/18/5183601/airport-moves-forward-with-new.html#.VBtXakj96nc#storylink=cpy

 

 

Demo for the new terminal is supposed to start next year. 

 

As for the others, here are the CLT websites that outline the current and future construction projects.

 

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Airport/Pages/CLT2015FutureProposedProjects.aspx

 

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Airport/Pages/CLT2015.aspx

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/CLT-Airport/260026724048476?sk=photos_stream&ref=page_internal

[clt29301]

]

Can't Comment. On next weeks flights to CDG as I won't be traveling. But don't understand your comments about buying lottery tickets? I would think construction costs would increase with time unless we enter a period of deflation. As far as the 787 is concerned who knows from which cities it will be based, if I had to bet I think the 787 would be based at JFK, DfW or LAX. I know the maiden international city pair will be JFK to CDG that has been announced already. But maybe you work at AA in route planning and know for sure that the 787 will be CLT based...

The point of the 787 is that the efficiency allows airlines to serve additional markets like London-Austin. With that in mind, markets that don't work for Charlotte today may work with the 787, that is an easy concept to understand.

As for the new terminal, unfit costs for the building a few years out are a lot cheaper than building it out today. Since bonds and inflation are inversely related, a rise in inflation should reduce the airport interest. So, I don't see a lot of negatives to waiting or would read into it anything more than timing and US demand.

Are you really posting on the John Loke sites? If so, that would explain you incredibly negative and dismal views of Charlotte. The positive, John Locke is rarely right about Charlotte......this is the same group who said light rail would not be used.

Not sure about your flight but based on what I see and know, Charlotte-Paris load factors are good, a lot better than you imply. And, by looking at the future, if your flight was that light, it was an aberration.

Edited September 20, 2014 by clt29301

[cltbwimob]

To all who read have read my post above:

 

I would like to make a point regarding my comment directed towards Lloyds5.  My comment was not meant to be a personal attack on him, nor was it meant to necessarily dispute his viewpoints.  Although I think his viewpoints in some cases run counter to the best intelligence we have, that is not to say he may not be proven right eventually.  As an example, before the GRU cancellation, the best intelligence we had said it should likely stay, but it did not.  Nor was my point to quell meaningful debate.  As I stated in my previous post, UP is filled with arguments and counter-arguments.

 

My point in writing that post was twofold:

 

1.  The new rules of no route speculation as per Neo should apply to him in the same manner as it applies to us all.  In other words, he should not be able to continue his negative speculation with impunity while others of us are disallowed from countering his assertions because it fits into this nebulous realm of route speculation. 

2.  If he is here for the express purpose of upsetting individuals on this forum (i.e. trolling) then he needs to "cease and desist".  I tried the less direct route of simply directing him to Neo's post regarding the rules.  Since that never seemed to work I went for the more direct approach by confronting what I saw to be a blatant attempt to hijack a thread.  This is contrary to my normal MO, as I am not a moderator, yet I felt that the haranguing had reached a tipping point.

 

All that said, I by no means think we should view this as a place to gang up on someone with which we disagree.  The point is that we must all play by the rules as set forth in the terms of agreement (i.e. no trolling)  and any new rules as determined by the moderators (i.e. Neo's post from July).  We need to get back to the point where we can all disagree without being disagreeable.  That is all.

[Lloyds5]

I agree the CDG flight I was on was outrageously light with 55 passengers. What I posted about CDG was based on my conversation with US's station manager at CDG (Eric M) and his opinion on what he thinks will happen(he thinks  the new AA will not fly CDG to 7 cites in the US and believes BOS and CLT are the most likely to get cut since they are seasonal ).No I don't post for John Locke, but I do read the Blog in addition to lots of other material. I don't take a dim view of CLT at all, I just believe the airport is going to have less international in the future but somehow my stating my opinion has turned into a torrent of hate messages. I agree the 787 opens up lots of possibilities  but I think AA is going to fly it to places where they can maximize profit and strategically build lift to specific geographies. If they think it's CLT then they will pick CLT. I personally think it will be JFK as it will allow AA to compete more effectively with Delta across the Atlantic, at LAX the 787 will help AA build a Transpacific operation to compete better with UAL/ Delta and DFW will allow AA to build a stronger Latin American operation to support its strength to that region from Miami. CLT is going to remain a massive domestic hub taping into the SE market and creating the only viable competition to Delta and Atlanta. In reality CLT only has 2 cities that are year round to Europe on AA: LHR and FRA, so a pull down of the seasonal flying does very little to change the composition of the HUB- its a pride thing, I get it.    

[Lloyds5]

I agree with CLTbwimob, we can agree to disagree in a healthy way, and we can all say we told you so when whatever happens in the future happens because none of us is going to correct 100% of the time. One thing is for sure- there will be change as a result of this merger. I am going to miss US Airways that's for sure  for the ease of domestic upgrading, ability to purchase international premium seats at good fares, etc. With all of these mergers there is less competition and that is not good for the consumer.

[LKN704]

I have posted this site before, but I will post it again because it contains useful (albeit somewhat outdated) and interesting information. It is the website for The Wilson Group, who is the main design architect for CLT.

 

People mover system plans: http://www.twgarchitects.com/portfolio_detail.asp?portfolio_aviation=10

10 Year Master plan: http://www.twgarchitects.com/portfolio_detail.asp?portfolio_aviation=13#

 

Like I said, it is a little outdated. I am really eager to see plans for the new domestic concourse. Airport terminals in the US are usually cold and outdated compared to their international counterparts, so I am really excited to see what is on the drawing boards. It may sound cliché, but my wish is something that has a lot of natural light, glass, and high ceilings.

[clt29301]

I agree that we need to discuss matters in a respectful way. But, instead of making veiled implications based on one flight and talking to an employee.....I talk to them a lot......I think we need to understand broader business/ economic realities which I have stated before. For me, that takes precedence over station manager, others may disagree.

I think it is disrespectful when poster stake a position and then refuse to listen to anyone else.

[15895]

I have posted this site before, but I will post it again because it contains useful (albeit somewhat outdated) and interesting information. It is the website for The Wilson Group, who is the main design architect for CLT.

People mover system plans: http://www.twgarchitects.com/portfolio_detail.asp?portfolio_aviation=10

10 Year Master plan: http://www.twgarchitects.com/portfolio_detail.asp?portfolio_aviation=13#

Like I said, it is a little outdated. I am really eager to see plans for the new domestic concourse. Airport terminals in the US are usually cold and outdated compared to their international counterparts, so I am really excited to see what is on the drawing boards. It may sound cliché, but my wish is something that has a lot of natural light, glass, and high ceilings.

I hope it's planned in a way where light rail - or streetcar - is viable one day.

[ssh214]

I hope it's planned in a way where light rail - or streetcar - is viable one day.

I really believe they can make anything work if they really wanted it; just like they made Washington Dulles Airport work with the Silver Line.

 

Does anyone know what the capacity for the rental cars will be like for CLT once they move to their new facilities? I feel like they may be constrained not having a dedicated parking deck/facility like most airports do.