Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[tozmervo]

"I" is usually skipped to avoid confusion with the number 1. I'm sure "O" would be, too, if anyone got that far.

[CLTProductions]

http://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/news/2014/12/17/clt-traffic-soars-airport-on-track-for-new-record.html

 

Great news for CLT and further evidence to support the expansion efforts.

[dubone]

 

Is there really a need for a new parallel runway, other than for noise abatement purposes? I'd rather see the Terminal Lobby expansion expedited, along with the new control tower. Glad to see that new lease negotiations with AA are apparently going well, as their new lease could foreshadow their future operations at CLT.

 

I'm surprised rumors of QR and other carriers at CLT hasn't really been heard publically.

 

Apparently yes as it would replace the diagonal runway that is now not used while the parallel are runways are in use, from what I understand.  The terminal expansion is moving forward is not competing with this project for priority so it is a false dilemma.  

 

 

But if they were competing, runways are absolutely more important than terminal space.  Getting planes in and out is far more central to the mission of air travel than elbow room in a terminal.   Flying through Berlin-Tegel or Berlin-Schönefeld or other older too-small terminals, it may not be pleasant, but the primary goal is get up and out to the next city.    

 

Luckily, Charlotte will likely see both the runway expansion and the terminal expansion as they are both viable projects and we have the economic and budget capacity for them both. 

[uptownliving]

Apparently yes as it would replace the diagonal runway that is now not used while the parallel are runways are in use, from what I understand.  The terminal expansion is moving forward is not competing with this project for priority so it is a false dilemma.  

 

The FAA does allow them to now use the diagonal runway again while the parallels are also in use. I forget the details but they instituted some new safety measures to prevent a collision.

 

Charlotte is already in rare air nationally and internationally in that the runways can handle 3 simultaneous landings even in bad weather. I believe Charlotte is 1 of about 4 airports in the country so equipped. For me the big advantage of the 4th runway will be the ability to handle fully loaded aircraft to Asia Pacific which the current runways can't support.

[LKN704]

Even with the longer runway, I'd say flights to the Pacific Rim are a long shot.

[DMann]

Even with the longer runway, I'd say flights to the Pacific Rim are a long shot.

literally!

[CltFlyer]

Even with the longer runway, I'd say flights to the Pacific Rim are a long shot.

I wouldn't put ONE flight to Tokyo out of the question probably JL to NRT.

[ChessieCat]

The FAA does allow them to now use the diagonal runway again while the parallels are also in use. I forget the details but they instituted some new safety measures to prevent a collision.

 

Charlotte is already in rare air nationally and internationally in that the runways can handle 3 simultaneous landings even in bad weather. I believe Charlotte is 1 of about 4 airports in the country so equipped. For me the big advantage of the 4th runway will be the ability to handle fully loaded aircraft to Asia Pacific which the current runways can't support.

 

The current center runway 18C/36C at 10,000 feet can easily handle a fully-loaded 787-8 or A350-900 to Asia if JAL or Cathay ever decided to launch service to CLT.  The largest aircraft CLT may ever see is AA's 777-300ER and the center runway can handle that too. 

 

Heck, heavies routinely take off from 18L/36R (8,676 feet) including LH's A340-600 and even Air Force One (747-200, although not fully loaded) back in 2012 for the convention.  

[LKN704]

Exactly. The current runways at CLT could accommodate Asia service if need be, especially if launched on a 787.

CLT will never see AA's 77W I am afraid.

[uptownliving]

So are you saying we should not make the new runway 12,000 ft long? Wouldn't the airliners be able to save money cause thy would not have to operate at full thrust all the time for takeoffs?

[ChessieCat]

^A 12,000-foot runway is not a requirement for long-haul flights to Asia-- the center runway 18C/36C can handle every type of passenger aircraft out there, including the A380 and 7478i (which will never operate here anyway).

 

IMHO I would love to see the new runway but only if midfield terminals are also built a la ATL.  Otherwise 18R/36L will become a white elephant that airlines won't want to use due to long taxiing times. CLT doesn't need a debacle like STL's 11/29 which is used only 5% of the time.     

[cltbwimob]

^A 12,000-foot runway is not a requirement for long-haul flights to Asia-- the center runway 18C/36C can handle every type of passenger aircraft out there, including the A380 and 7478i (which will never operate here anyway).

IMHO I would love to see the new runway but only if midfield terminals are also built a la ATL. Otherwise 18R/36L will become a white elephant that airlines won't want to use due to long taxiing times. CLT doesn't need a debacle like STL's 11/29 which is used only 5% of the time.

I think you are equating a plane's ability to merely operate from a runway, to being able to operate from a runway at MTOW. Yes it is true that the largest of airplanes can operate from 18C/36C; the largest aircraft ever built, the AN-225 has landed and taken off from that runway. However, I think there are a couple of factors you may not have considered.

For starters, a plane has to use more fuel for ultra long-haul journeys. As such, comparing the takeoff roll of a 747 going from Charlotte to Washington to the takeoff roll of a 787 making a trip from Charlotte to Tokyo may not be fair. Second, not only do runways need to be long enough for a plane to get airborne, they must also be long enough to allow the aircraft to get airborne and clear any obstacles by a standard factor of safety. I can not remember the exact number, but there is a standard obstacle clearance number. Third, density altitude and pressure altitude are vitally important. Without delving into the specifics, density and pressure altitude are major factors in determining both the efficiency of the engines and wings. PA/DA is typically lower during the winter and higher in the summer meaning that aircraft that are able to use 10000 ft runways in the winter may require 11000 ft in the summer at MTOW. I remember reading somewhere that a 787 needs a 10500 ft runway in order to takeoff at MTOW. I do not know how much fuel is required for a Charlotte-Tokyo flight, but I imagine that it close to a full load, and since the PA and DA soar in the summer, I imagine the 10500 number would probably be accurate for a Charlotte to Tokyo flight.

All that said there are cheaper ways to get to the magic 12000 ft length (which woud allow pretty much any aircraft travelling to any destination to takeoff) rather than bUilding a brand new runway. They could just extend the runway by 2000 ft, or if they wanted to be super cheap, they could just add 1000ft displaced threshold at both ends of the runway.

Edited December 19, 2014 by cltbwimob

[Deleted.]

Unless there is mass-expansion from CLT, I think the best option is to extend 36/18C by 2000ft in stead of the building the new runway. Not only is it cheaper and quicker to build but also avoids the situation STL got into, if AA does decide to de-hub Charlotte (which is incredibly small and very highly unlikely).

EDIT: On the subject of Tokyo, JAL seats 161 passengers in its new SkySuite 787 layout (a LUS A320 has 150 seats). We could easily support a flight to Tokyo on the long-range equivalent of an A320 (which JAL's 787 pretty much is) anyway this is the point for the 787, long, thin routes that wouldn't of been profitable on larger, older aircraft.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Piedmont767

[LKN704]

CVG built their longest runway at 12,000 ft (go figure) based on pledges from DL that the runway would be used for flights to Asia, and look what happened.

Edit: Adding to that, JAL currently flies their 787s with 186 seats to the US. A 787 with only 186 seats (basically the same capacity as a US A321) will not be at MTOW.

Edited December 20, 2014 by LKN704

[uptownliving]

The runways are paid for 90% by Federal dollars....so building a new runway is not going to bankrupt the airport. Also we are early in the process, the environmental studies haven't even begun so if AA were to de-hub or cut back Charlotte, we still have a few years to cancel the project with little investment made.

 

I'm not a pilot or an aviation engineer so I will leave the runway length to the professionals, but will point out that the airport officials have been very consistent in saying that 12,000 ft is the magic number needed to support daily Asian operations.

[dcharlotte]

How do the asian flights to current American hubs do? I would suspect that due to the timing of the flights (landing time is important to many business travelers), a partner airline would not be interested in having 2x or 3x daily flights to Dallas, Chicago or Philly. It would almost make sense to spread a new flight to another hub for those looking to connect to other destinations on the east coast.

 

Philadelphia's runway is not 12,000 ft long, but they do have direct flights to Doha, which is a much longer flight. I would bet Philadelphia would get that flight before Charlotte. 

[Miesian Corners]

How do the asian flights to current American hubs do? I would suspect that due to the timing of the flights (landing time is important to many business travelers), a partner airline would not be interested in having 2x or 3x daily flights to Dallas, Chicago or Philly. It would almost make sense to spread a new flight to another hub for those looking to connect to other destinations on the east coast.

 

Philadelphia's runway is not 12,000 ft long, but they do have direct flights to Doha, which is a much longer flight. I would bet Philadelphia would get that flight before Charlotte. 

The longest flight in the world is currently DFW to Sydney (8,880 miles, or 17 hours).  PHL to DOH is 6,790 miles, or 13 hours, only an hour further than PHL to TLV.  

[ah59396]

Just out of curiosity, can someone explain to me how we landed Electrolux/Husqvarna without offering a non-stop to Stockholm?

[kermit]

^ I dunno, but they did move from a place that was essentially without air service at all (Augusta GA). So Charlotte was a huge improvement for them.

I am also guessing when I say that an appliance maker has products that are 'customized' for consumers on each contenant -- so regional HQs operate relatively independently. Car makers on the other hand will be heavily international in their production and decision making So the linkage home is more critical.

[ChessieCat]

Unless there is mass-expansion from CLT, I think the best option is to extend 36/18C by 2000ft in stead of the building the new runway. Not only is it cheaper and quicker to build but also avoids the situation STL got into, if AA does decide to de-hub Charlotte (which is incredibly small and very highly unlikely).

EDIT: On the subject of Tokyo, JAL seats 161 passengers in its new SkySuite 787 layout (a LUS A320 has 150 seats). We could easily support a flight to Tokyo on the long-range equivalent of an A320 (which JAL's 787 pretty much is) anyway this is the point for the 787, long, thin routes that wouldn't of been profitable on larger, older aircraft.

 

JAL's first 787-8 flight to North America was to SAN which has a runway length of 9,401 feet in name but has an infamous Displaced threshold due to obstacles located near the runway (parking deck, hills, buildings, etc).  CLT fortunately doesn't have these obstacles so any of the three major runways can handle JAL's 787.

 

EDIT: The first A350-900 was delivered to Qatar yesterday-- that plane only requires a max runway length of 8,200 feet at MTOW so if QR ever decided to launch CLT-DOH, the Dougie can handle it.  

 

CLT's leadership has got to read the writing on the wall that their long-haul future will be dominated by the A330, A350, and 787.  The largest heavies like the 77W, 777-9x, A380, and 747-8i will never operate from CLT, so a 12,000 foot runway is not necessary.

Edited December 23, 2014 by ChessieCat

[kickazzz2000]

What about the cargo

[ChessieCat]

^The center runway can easily handle FedEx's largest aircraft (777F) if they ever decided to fly it to CLT.  MD11F's are the largest cargo aircraft that CLT routinely sees from FedEx.

 

UPS doesn't have ops at CLT.  If they ever decided to fly it's largest aircraft (747-400F), the center runway can handle it.

 

Belly cargo in passenger jets has changed the cargo industry completely.  That's the reason why neither FedEx nor UPS has ordered the A380F or 747-8F.  Like passenger jets, there's little need for such large aircraft.  

 

Special visitors like the Antonov An-124 and C-17 Globemaster (seen during 2012 convention) can operate from short runways and have visited CLT before: 

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?aircraft_genericsearch=%3Dantonov%25&airlinesearch=&countrysearch=-+Charlotte+-+Douglas+Int.+%28CLT+%2F+KCLT%29&specialsearch=&keywords=&sort_order=photo_id+desc&page_limit=15&daterange=&range=&thumbnails=&engine_version=6.0

 

So again to reiterate, a 12,000 foot runway will not be necessary for cargo ops at CLT.

Edited December 23, 2014 by ChessieCat

[LKN704]

Even with the current runway, a fully loaded 77W should have no problems flying to LHR, for example.

[allthingsplanes]

I understand that most planes in most circumstances don't need over 10,000 feet of runway.  However, there must be a good reason airports build longer runways.  Obviously in places like Denver it takes a longer runway.  But why does JFK have a 14,500 foot runway if it's not needed??

 

The main reason to have a 4th runway is to conduct simultaneous dual takeoffs and landings.  However, given the fact that it's rare that CLT is busy for both takeoffs and landings at the same time, I don't know how much the 4th runway is needed.  But I'm definitely not an expert and am not privy to the info that the airport management has.

[ChessieCat]

^JFK's Bay Runway is that length because of the layout of the airport. Rarely does an aircraft need all 14,500 feet because that would require crossing parallel runway 22R/4L, so planes enter the runway before 22R/4L and still have say 12,000 feet when taking off the west.  It's simply due to the layout of the airport.

 

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/jfk-bay-runway-info.html

 

I once flew on a Delta RJ from JFK-CLT.  Delta's domestic terminal is located at the halfway point of the Bay runway, so we simply taxied onto it around the halfway mark and still had 7,500 feet of runway to take off to the west.  

 

14,500 feet is also useful for emergency landings.  Whenever a plane on the east coast needs a runway for an emergency, they are given the Bay runway because of its length.  It was also a designated Space Shuttle emergency landing site and may have received subsidies from the government to make it that length.