Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[cltbwimob]

Just spoke with a friend at US corporate in PHX. The only big imminent changes at CLT will be reduced frequencies (but on larger aircraft) between CLT-DFW and CLT-ORD. CLT-LAX will get an increase in daily service as well as one widebody departure daily (prob a 767--AA has over 100 of them). There will also be a realignment of one European departure (CLT-LHR goes to 2X daily (both flown by US Airways crews, not BA--that will come in 2015), CLT-FRA goes to one a day). Everything else will be biz as usual until late summer at operational merger time. As it was told to me, Doug Parker has been working on this for three years. He and his team have had everything planned since last summer. Oh, and look for the new international terminal to begin construction a year earlier than originally anticipated (late 2014 if they can finish the parking garage by August).

BA back in 2015? Did your friend indicate whether are they going to replace one of the double daily LHR US flights or will it be a third daily frequency? Also, did he/she indicate the type of plane they might use? I don't know if they would have the inside scoop on BA thinking but figured I would ask.

Finally I am sure this probably wasn't discussed, but I figured you might have some insider knowledge. Is there a possibility of Air Berlin, Japan Airlines, Qatar, et al. establishing a presence in CLT?

Edited November 14, 2013 by cltbwimob

[Miesian Corners]

BA back in 2015? Did your friend indicate whether are they going to replace one of the double daily LHR US flights or will it be a third daily frequency? Also, did he/she indicate the type of plane they might use? I don't know if they would have the inside scoop on BA thinking but figured I would ask.

Finally I am sure this probably wasn't discussed, but I figured you might have some insider knowledge. Is there a possibility of Air Berlin, Japan Airlines, Qatar, et al. establishing a presence in CLT?

Air Berlin is a possibility when BBI (new extremely delayed Berlin airport) opens.  Qatar just started PHL, so I don't think they'll be coming here anytime soon (but I could be wrong).  As for London, I doubt CLT could support a third daily.  I think the point was that BA would take over one of the two non-stops that will be flown by US in summer 2014.  Again, that is based only on BA finding available a/c to fly the route.  With the 787-10 coming on line in 2018, CLT to Asia is a possibility, but no idea who would fly it..  

Edited November 17, 2013 by Miesian Corners

[LKN704]

That is, if BBI ever opens. A friend of mine who lives outside Berlin says that BBI is probably Germany's biggest embarrassment in today's times. Demand is stronger to Dusseldorf from CLT, where Air Berlin also has a hub.

 

I highly doubt Qatar would come to CLT, just because what little demand there is from here to the Middle East, is going to the UAE. Emirates would be more likely, but still highly unlikely.

 

While I would love to see Asia service, I doubt we ever will, unless its to the Middle East or India. The Pacific Rim is too far, and they only way an airline could make CLTNRT work if there was a large amount of high-yielding feed because of the great distance involved. No airline could make a profit simply running the flight to fill Florida connections. Plus, FL/VA/SC/TN/GA/Caribbean/LatAm is really the only place it would make sense for passengers to connect to. No one would fly Portland, ME-CLT-PWM unless the price is right, but again, that would be low-yielding and unprofitable. CLT-NRT would be the longest flight from the USA to Narita. The only way ULH flights (ultra long haul) flights can work is if they are filled with high-yielding customers.

[Urbanity]

I highly doubt Qatar would come to CLT, just because what little demand there is from here to the Middle East, is going to the UAE. Emirates would be more likely, but still highly unlikely.

 

While I would love to see Asia service, I doubt we ever will, unless its to the Middle East or India.

Just a question about this part of your post (and all airline geeks feel free to respond) but what I read recently is that it's not so much a matter of Charlotte originating traffic to satisfy demand for those routes so much as the combined merged airline wanting to serve those (really any) international routes  and using Charlotte as a cheap transfer point for other Domestic air travel to go overseas.

 

I read that Charlotte's per passenger fee amount to something like $1 which is phenomenally cheap for most airports (particularly of its size) and cheaper than Philly and Miami.  

 

Based on that if American wanted to offer direct flights from the U.S. east coast to international destinations, and they need domestic hubs which are cheap and can handle traffic transferring to those flights - would not Charlotte make sense?

Again - as I have said before - I don't know the airline business, so maybe my point which seems pretty logical in my head, doesn't translate in the airline world (which I admit rarely seems logical to me).

[15895]

^ After a couple months of pondering the question, I've concluded that people have to connect.

Flights out of NYC, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, etc. are not 100% local traffic.

They can consolidate all the connecting traffic to Charlotte because If they're gonna connect... Why not to Charlotte where it's nearly 20x cheaper plus they get lots of concessions and such from CLT...

My opinikn

Edit; I don't mean literally shift all connecting traffic....

Edited November 17, 2013 by AirNostrumMAD

[LKN704]

It's true that our enplanement cost is the lowest in the industry, and because of that, we are blessed with the US hub.

 

But when you have an international flight that relies on connections, it tends to be low-yielding (mostly vacationers). Rome, Paris, Madrid, Dublin, Barcelona, Lisbon, and Rio are all low-yielding flights ex CLT, and would be most susceptible to be cut. London, Frankfurt, Sao Paulo, and Munich are all high-yielding, and offer good local demand. Other high--yielding markets in Europe include Milan and Zurich.

 

Obviously when the cost to fly an airplane to Tokyo/Dubai is greater than the cost of flying a plane to Europe. Once you reach a certain distance, the cost of carrying extra fuel really takes a toll. Hence the reason why Singapore-EWR/LAX, Bangkok-JFK/LAX are/have been discontinued. Yeah, the flights were full, but the cost of carrying all the extra fuel really took a toll, and the airlines realized it was cheaper just to route pax over another destination, such as Bangkok-Seoul-Los Angeles.

 

Look at Salt Lake City. SLC has a similarly sized metro area, has a low cost of enplanement, and couldn't support at NRT nonstop, even though DL has a hub at both ends. Even ATL, can only support NRT and ICN. And ICN is only around because it is a Skyteam hub.

 

I hope this makes a little more sense.

[15895]

^ but that lower yielding traffic (from say Nashville or Austin of Raleigh or Orlando, etc) has to go through somewhere

Why not send them through CLT?

[CarolinaDaydreamin]

Could someone post some pictures of the airport construction? As an out of towner i'd love to see the progress. Thanks.

[Urbanity]

It's true that our enplanement cost is the lowest in the industry, and because of that, we are blessed with the US hub.

 

But when you have an international flight that relies on connections, it tends to be low-yielding (mostly vacationers). Rome, Paris, Madrid, Dublin, Barcelona, Lisbon, and Rio are all low-yielding flights ex CLT, and would be most susceptible to be cut. London, Frankfurt, Sao Paulo, and Munich are all high-yielding, and offer good local demand. Other high--yielding markets in Europe include Milan and Zurich.

 

Obviously when the cost to fly an airplane to Tokyo/Dubai is greater than the cost of flying a plane to Europe. Once you reach a certain distance, the cost of carrying extra fuel really takes a toll. Hence the reason why Singapore-EWR/LAX, Bangkok-JFK/LAX are/have been discontinued. Yeah, the flights were full, but the cost of carrying all the extra fuel really took a toll, and the airlines realized it was cheaper just to route pax over another destination, such as Bangkok-Seoul-Los Angeles.

 

Look at Salt Lake City. SLC has a similarly sized metro area, has a low cost of enplanement, and couldn't support at NRT nonstop, even though DL has a hub at both ends. Even ATL, can only support NRT and ICN. And ICN is only around because it is a Skyteam hub.

 

I hope this makes a little more sense.

 

Not exactly (makes more sense).  I do appreciate your thoughts particularly on international travel that requires connecting flights are predominately leisure travel which is something to chew over, but that doesn't really answer my general question.   Also I don't really see Salt Lake as a good comparison for a number of reasons mainly that it is already (less than 500 miles as the crow flies so close to Denver International without ANY major population centers between.  On the other side (and to the South) there is Las Vegas which is an International Destination in its own right for originating/arrival traffic, and again - no major population centers in between.  While my argument is on cheap transfer airports, there certainly has to proximity to origination traffic.

 

^ but that lower yielding traffic (from say Nashville or Austin of Raleigh or Orlando, etc) has to go through somewhere

Why not send them through CLT?

 

This is along the lines of what I was thinking.  Charlotte serves as great Southeast launching airport for international when you consider Delta has Atlanta and Miami is so expensive.  

 

Do not get me wrong - I'm NOT even intimating that CLT is about to become ATL but your (LKN704) original "highly doubts" about Middle East and Asia service haven't been fully explained logically to me beyond personal perception - which btw is fine and could be right, but my question was more on the reason business wise those routes would not be in the line for CLT eventually. 

Edited November 18, 2013 by Urbanity

[15895]

^ the only way those routes wouldn't work if there wasn't enough connecting traffic.

If the demand is concentrated in a couple cities, then generally those cities are going to have non stops already and they will fill the rest of the cabin with connections. I'm not sure the demand on those cities so I'm not sure if that would be the reason.

Tokyo is a OneWorld hub and if I'm not mistaken American & JAL have a JV across the Pacific (meaning they are basically a single airline - split revenue, coordinate flights etc) and Tokyo has enough demand in the USA for a Charlotte flight (compared to other Asian destinations)

There are many hubs (Chicago, Atlanta, New York City and more) where they can't support Euro flights that Charlotte can.

Lisbon, for example. If I'm not mistaken; Delta dropped ATL-Lisbon. I would not compare Salt Lake City to CLT for comparisons.

[Urbanity]

BTW - To clarify - I do appreciate the unlikelihood of CLT to Tokyo direct (or most Pacific cities/nations) at least in the forseeable future.  From what I can tell even Atlanta doesn't have much (DIRECT Flights)  in a roster of direct non-stop flights to Tokyo.

 

My questions are more on Europe and the Middle East.

 

Edit - I found a site that if accurate is interesting in the listing of non-stops for each airport.   For example it lists CLT having 51 international (quick count) non-stop outbound flights for CLT serving about 30 cities   They list 101 in the same criteria for Atlanta (for about 80 cities).

 

Does anyone know this site and if it is accurate? 

Edited November 18, 2013 by Urbanity

[carolinagarnet]

This weekend I flew from DC to Charlotte through Philadelphia (got to keep up my preferred status!). The PHL-CLT flight had just come in from Amsterdam and was an Airbus A330 (two rows, 8 seats across). I may be off about this, but I believe the argument is that farther destinations require larger planes that consume more fuel per passenger than smaller planes. In order to keep these planes continuously used, there have to be either enough international flights to shuttle back and forth between the two airports or domestic flights with very high volume (i.e. hub-hub or big city to big city). Airports can generate that level of demand on its own, but at the moment there are now as many flights that have that level of demand in Charlotte. Therefore, the secondary uses of these aircraft are more limited in Charlotte than they would be at O'Hare or JFK.

 

The other thing to consider is location. Flights from the US-Asia generally fly very far north to then fly back south rather than crossing the Pacific. Logically the Earth is much narrower at the poles and flying over open ocean makes it significantly more difficult to land somewhere in case of emergency. Chicago being more centrally located means shorter domestic connection times, but being farther north and west of Charlotte also means shorter flying time. Given the increased fuel requirements, the impact of flight distance is more pronounced than it would be on a shorter flight. This also holds true for Charlotte-Europe/Middle East because longer distance flights mean more time flying up the Atlantic coast. Given the space limitations at other airports, it makes sense to route some popular flights (i.e. London, Madrid) through Charlotte and of course local demand (i.e. Frankfurt) helps justify additional international locations. However, if airlines are going to use international gates at airports like O'Hare and JFK, they are generally going to want to use them for routes that require higher demand and larger aircraft. Again, I could be off on this, but this is my understanding.

[Windsurfer]

 

 

Edited November 18, 2013 by Windsurfer

[Miesian Corners]

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/american-airlines-to-take-delivery-of-first-boeing-787-dreamliners-in-november-2014.html/

 

With the New American taking delivery of its 787-900s sooner (first delivery moved up to just a year from now), this is a good sign for CLT.  The smaller, fuel efficient, built for long-haul service from/to medium-sized cities jet is perfect for international service from a hub like ours.  American has 42 of them on firm order and another 58 on option.  This is also the (eventual) replacement aircraft for the 767 (US and AA have a combined 76 of these aircraft).

Edited November 19, 2013 by Miesian Corners

[Miesian Corners]

BTW - To clarify - I do appreciate the unlikelihood of CLT to Tokyo direct (or most Pacific cities/nations) at least in the forseeable future.  From what I can tell even Atlanta doesn't have much (DIRECT Flights)  in a roster of direct non-stop flights to Tokyo.

 

My questions are more on Europe and the Middle East.

 

Edit - I found a site that if accurate is interesting in the listing of non-stops for each airport.   For example it lists CLT having 51 international (quick count) non-stop outbound flights for CLT serving about 30 cities   They list 101 in the same criteria for Atlanta (for about 80 cities).

 

Does anyone know this site and if it is accurate? 

I'd say its slightly inaccurate. Salt Lake City, Madrid, Sao Paulo, and Dublin are missing for Charlotte.  

[kickazzz2000]

I'd say its slightly inaccurate. Salt Lake City, Madrid, Sao Paulo, and Dublin are missing for Charlotte.  

Also it lists LGW instead of LHR, and CUR is missing as well.

[dubone]

I know it isn't as exciting to most of you, but I am really happy to see that they will be using land that is otherwise fallow in between the runways and the rooftops of the decks for solar power. 

 

I have been researching and ordered solar panels for my house recently and have seen just how dramatically the technology /efficiency/ production has grown while costs have come down significantly.  The useful life of the panels has also grown from 20-25 years up to 40y.

 

For me, in just a small area of my roof, I will be able to cover 2/3 of my energy usage at an average price LESS than the current price I pay Duke, and obviously far lower than what I'd pay after inflation, such as the 7% rate increase they are seeking for 2014.  

 

So when you can do that on a blank slate like land already landscaped flat with no trees around, and especially land with no opportunity cost of forest or agriculture or development, it is huge no brainer. 

 

Solar power has far passed the point of being purely for karmic or altruistic goals and is now in the realm of real cost savings through investing in the long term.   For many the question is 'will I still live here after the 7-9 year payback period?' but for the airport, that type of long term investment makes perfect sense, as it will not be going anywhere for those 40y.  On the parking decks, it also provides shades for cars on the top level which is of benefit to their customers.

 

I am happy that it has finally gotten to the point where completely business-minded executives are starting to get to the point where it makes economic sense on a cost level, even though it has already made sense for a long time compared to the social and economic costs of externalities like pollution and geopolitical strife. 

[Matthew.Brendan]

(Off topic: dubone check out what Apple is doing right here at their NC data center. Amazing. http://gigaom.com/2013/11/18/apple-solar-farm-fuel-cell-farms-exclusive-photos-investigative-report/ )

[dubone]

Yeah, Apple needed the karma points, though, as they were getting slammed in blue states for having the iCloud be run on coal, so they did really great things to turn that around.  

 

Sunpower is the same company that builds the really high quality solar panels I described that I'm trying to get, and that Apple used.  

 

http://us.sunpowercorp.com/homes/products-services/solar-panels/x-series/

 

They also seem to be doing good things for utility scale solar as well.  

[ssh214]

Just wanted to rant on something about the stupidity of the system for airlines... Had to book a last second flight to Fort Lauderdale last night for a trip today; $721 from Charlotte with US; $342 from Raleigh with US connecting through Charlotte to take the flight that was $721 from Charlotte... Sorry guys, just wanted to rant...

[ScottCLT]

Just wanted to rant on something about the stupidity of the system for airlines... Had to book a last second flight to Fort Lauderdale last night for a trip today; $721 from Charlotte with US; $342 from Raleigh with US connecting through Charlotte to take the flight that was $721 from Charlotte... Sorry guys, just wanted to rant...

A good way around this is to book a multi-city trip from CLT to your destination and then return to a city that US only flies to out of CLT, like Greenville, NC or Fayetteville, NC (or even check Raleigh). Carry your bags on, and on the way back, just hop off in Charlotte and don't board the last leg of your return flight. To do this, you better be certain that you are in zones 1,2, or 3 or your luggage may be checked and might go on to that final destination. But I am always in zone 1 and I've done this countless times to save money. My boss and I have a running joke that the guys that man the counters at concourse E have it out for me because I do it so often. They must see my name on the list and think, "Geez...how many times is this guy going to miss his flight?"

[mad_park]

A good way around this is to book a multi-city trip from CLT to your destination and then return to a city that US only flies to out of CLT, like Greenville, NC or Fayetteville, NC (or even check Raleigh). Carry your bags on, and on the way back, just hop off in Charlotte and don't board the last leg of your return flight. To do this, you better be certain that you are in zones 1,2, or 3 or your luggage may be checked and might go on to that final destination. But I am always in zone 1 and I've done this countless times to save money. My boss and I have a running joke that the guys that man the counters at concourse E have it out for me because I do it so often. They must see my name on the list and think, "Geez...how many times is this guy going to miss his flight?"

 

Very good chance you won't collect miles for any of the flight on your itinerary - and per the fine print, they could cancel your FF account all together. 

[New Name]

I did this once at at Reagan in DC - and the next day I found a charge on my credit card because I didn't complete my ticket. I can't remember what the charge was called or even how much it was for. Naively (I suppose) I had called to ask if I could do this, they said no and warned of this charge. I gambled, and they were serious.

[ScottCLT]

I did this once at at Reagan in DC - and the next day I found a charge on my credit card because I didn't complete my ticket. I can't remember what the charge was called or even how much it was for. Naively (I suppose) I had called to ask if I could do this, they said no and warned of this charge. I gambled, and they were serious.

Hmmmph...guess I'm lucky it has never caught up with me before. I have never been charged or lost FF miles before. But I'll think about it before doing it again.

[Niner National]

Just wanted to rant on something about the stupidity of the system for airlines... Had to book a last second flight to Fort Lauderdale last night for a trip today; $721 from Charlotte with US; $342 from Raleigh with US connecting through Charlotte to take the flight that was $721 from Charlotte... Sorry guys, just wanted to rant...

I went to Costa Rica a few years ago and the RT flight was about $700 out of Charlotte. There was another family on my flight flying from Michigan that was simply connecting in Charlotte. Their round trip cost for the flight was $250ish.