Charlotte-Douglas Airport (CLT) Expansion

[CLT2014]

17 minutes ago, videtur quam contuor said:

How will this affect airport passenger capacity?

Back of the napkin math.

An extra 10 gates could support ~70 flights per day, assuming average seat count of 150 per plane, that's an extra 10,500 passengers per day  or about 3.8 million per year.

[videtur quam contuor]

I was referring to the additional runway now under construction (apparently).

[TCLT]

4 hours ago, videtur quam contuor said:

I was referring to the additional runway now under construction (apparently).

I can't imagine it would do much for passenger capacity. CLT already sees one of AA's highest (if not the highest) gate utilization so we're not talking about being able to add substantially more flights. It would improve efficiency and with the other airfield improvements shorten taxi times. Adding gates is where passenger and/or flight capacity increases will come from.

[J-Rob]

Just now, TCLT said:

I can't imagine it would do much for passenger capacity. CLT already sees one of AA's highest (if not the highest) gate utilization so we're not talking about being able to add substantially more flights. It would improve efficiency and with the other airfield improvements shorten taxi times. Adding gates is where passenger and/or flight capacity increases will come from.

Is the new runway longer? I can't remember. Theoretically you can add different types of (international) flights to fill new gates. I am ignorant in this regard, though, so forgive me if the current runway is long enough. 

[TCLT]

6 minutes ago, J-Rob said:

Is the new runway longer? I can't remember. Theoretically you can add different types of (international) flights to fill new gates. I am ignorant in this regard, though, so forgive me if the current runway is long enough. 

New runway will be 10,000 feet which will equal the current center runway length. Larger planes would need gates capable of handling them. There's some ability given the current gate layout to further ungauge flights to add to overall seat count, but the new runway won't do anything to enable that. That's something AA or the other airlines can do now if they want. But keep in mind AA has already upgauged significantly over the last several years.

[BarrenLucidity]

On 6/4/2023 at 5:11 PM, KJHburg said:

there are several sets of moving sidewalks in between though to make it easier.  

50% of them may even be operational. 

[KJHburg]

Official groundbreaking of new 4th parallel runway which has been underway for a while.

https://cltairport.mediaroom.com/Runway_Groundbreaking?fbclid=IwAR20iB7yoxwWrG45yNyBJmTeCzYMnyBOXUg5Etzb1rcl00JROnLJ3zrIH7M

[csweet]

1 hour ago, KJHburg said:

Official groundbreaking of new 4th parallel runway which has been underway for a while.

https://cltairport.mediaroom.com/Runway_Groundbreaking?fbclid=IwAR20iB7yoxwWrG45yNyBJmTeCzYMnyBOXUg5Etzb1rcl00JROnLJ3zrIH7M

Pretty remarkable to see how much earth moving equipment is onsite. Interesting note - 20 additional arrivals once it is complete. Does this alter anything? Or just relief from other runways?

[KJHburg]

saw this on twitter about the new runway. 

[elrodvt]

Maybe I'm missing the label but I can't tell how long it is. If it's to scale it seems shorter?

[CLT2014]

2 minutes ago, elrodvt said:

Maybe I'm missing the label but I can't tell how long it is. If it's to scale it seems shorter?

It will be 10,000 feet. The same length as 18C/36C to the east of it.

[navigator319]

shame this was not approved for 11/12k 

[Nolan]

10 hours ago, navigator319 said:

shame this was not approved for 11/12k 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/27/2019-03434/notice-of-cancellation-of-environmental-impact-statement-for-proposed-capacity-enhancements-and

“In October 2018, FAA conducted an EIS runway length analysis for the proposed 12,000-foot runway, and the analysis determined that only a 10,000-foot runway was required to meet the purpose and need. The analysis was coordinated with the City of Charlotte and its airline tenants.”

Edited June 11, 2023 by Nolan

[navigator319]

24 minutes ago, Nolan said:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/27/2019-03434/notice-of-cancellation-of-environmental-impact-statement-for-proposed-capacity-enhancements-and

“In October 2018, FAA conducted an EIS runway length analysis for the proposed 12,000-foot runway, and the analysis determined that only a 10,000-foot runway was required to meet the purpose and need. The analysis was coordinated with the City of Charlotte and its airline tenants.”

exactly my point it's BS it's not 12k.  It's a long term asset, that would be its purpose and need.  

[elrodvt]

Is the trend to need longer runways though. Seems counter to the 747 and A380 story? 

[BarrenLucidity]

32 minutes ago, elrodvt said:

Is the trend to need longer runways though. Seems counter to the 747 and A380 story? 

Charlotte likely won't have direct flights to Asia without a longer runway. Technically it would be possible but probably not profitable due to less cargo capacity. 

ATL by comparison has as 12.3k ft runway. 

[elrodvt]

20 minutes ago, BarrenLucidity said:

Charlotte likely won't have direct flights to Asia without a longer runway. Technically it would be possible but probably not profitable due to less cargo capacity. 

ATL by comparison has as 12.3k ft runway. 

 

Gotcha, I'm curious as to which aircraft and load drives it.

[CLT2014]

7 hours ago, BarrenLucidity said:

Charlotte likely won't have direct flights to Asia without a longer runway. Technically it would be possible but probably not profitable due to less cargo capacity. 

ATL by comparison has as 12.3k ft runway. 

Charlotte could have direct flights to Asia on aircraft like the 787 that have a maximum takeoff weight distance of 8,500 feet. That would be an aircraft packed at full capacity. In the event American Airlines ever added a direct flight to Tokyo from CLT, the 787 is the most likely aircraft in their fleet to operate the route and could start tomorrow on existing runways. AA does not operate aircraft like the A380 or 747 that require the longer runways that are classically cited as reasons for longer runways. 

For non-AA service, Japan Airlines would be the most likely candidate to provide service as they are in the OneWorld Alliance with AA and could receive connecting traffic. They will soon exclusively operate all long haul flights on 787 or A350 aircraft which need 8,500 and 8,000 feet respectively at max load. JAL and Cathay Pacific already serve Boston Logan for example that only has 10,000 foot runways for service to Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Charlotte is unlikely to see the 747 or A380 as those aircraft are largely being retired so it makes sense to not overspend as aircraft takeoff distances are shrinking and we are not a 747 / A380 market. 

Edited June 11, 2023 by CLT2014

[BarrenLucidity]

12 hours ago, CLT2014 said:

Charlotte could have direct flights to Asia on aircraft like the 787 that have a maximum takeoff weight distance of 8,500 feet. That would be an aircraft packed at full capacity. In the event American Airlines ever added a direct flight to Tokyo from CLT, the 787 is the most likely aircraft in their fleet to operate the route and could start tomorrow on existing runways. AA does not operate aircraft like the A380 or 747 that require the longer runways that are classically cited as reasons for longer runways. 

For non-AA service, Japan Airlines would be the most likely candidate to provide service as they are in the OneWorld Alliance with AA and could receive connecting traffic. They will soon exclusively operate all long haul flights on 787 or A350 aircraft which need 8,500 and 8,000 feet respectively at max load. JAL and Cathay Pacific already serve Boston Logan for example that only has 10,000 foot runways for service to Tokyo and Hong Kong.

Charlotte is unlikely to see the 747 or A380 as those aircraft are largely being retired so it makes sense to not overspend as aircraft takeoff distances are shrinking and we are not a 747 / A380 market. 

Yeah, technically possible but probably not as profitable. Not to mention that AA doesn't seem to understand how it wants to to run APAC services. 

Edited June 11, 2023 by BarrenLucidity

[LKN704]

Today's modern widebody aircraft are extremely efficient and efficiency will only improve as technology evolves. The reality is that outside of some rare cases, like at hot and high airports,  runway length above 10,000 feet simply isn't necessary for most missions. Emirates was able to fly FLL-DXB nonstop and FLL has a shorter runway length than CLT. 

Ironically, the one aircraft that would struggle (well not struggle, but would likely be weight restricted) at CLT isn't even a widebody...but the runway-hogging 737-900ER, whose takeoff run at MTOW is the same as an A380s at 9,800 feet. The 739ER (for Alaska) is essentially why RDU was able to get the FAA to authorize a 639-foot extension (to 10,639) for their upcoming runway. 

I flew a 739ER from Dulles to SFO the other week...our take-off run was over a minute long and we used almost every foot of the runway available. 

3 hours ago, BarrenLucidity said:

doesn't seem to understand how it want to to run APAC services. 

It isn't so much that AA doesn't understand, but they face multiple barriers in the Asian market that DL and UA do not face:

1) AA has poor hubs for Asia service. CLT/PHX/PHL lack local traffic to Asia, MIA is poorly placed geographically speaking, LAX has an insane amount of service from Asian carriers who are able to undercut AA in price/service/schedule, ORD has competition from both UA and Asian carriers and AA's Asian service (TYO/DEL/PVG/PEK) never was profitable in the years they ran them (frankly I doubt UA's services are profitable either), and no U.S. carrier has been successful at JFK-Asia, again thanks to competition with Asian network carriers. Asian passengers (especially Japanese travelers) overwhelmingly prefer their home carriers and most U.S.-Asia routes are skewed towards the Asian POS, rather than the U.S. POS.

2) UA and DL (via NW) have a much longer history serving Asia and have slowly built up a branding reputation/recognition in the region. UA has an impressive brand recognition/marketing presence in Japan, Australia, and Hong Kong. AA lacks all of that and only began serving Asia via NRT in 1987. UA already had 13 destinations in Asia and Australia then, and NW had 12. To this day, I believe AA lacks a marketing team in Asia and everything is just handled via JAL. 

3) AA has a smaller widebody fleet than UA/DL. UA has 220 widebody aircraft and DL has 158...AA only has 126. 

To be fair, it isn't like AA hasn't attempted anything over the years. I would not be surprised to see AA throw in the towel and eventually return to LAX-Asia flying simply because they lack a better Asian hub. Operating LAX-Asia flights at a loss might make better business sense than not operating them at all. 

Frankly, AA's network planning team is probably a mess right now with the recent DOJ ruling against their northeast alliance with JetBlue. 

The internal company documents that were released from the ruling are fascinating and a very good read...AA was very much prepared to close the PHL hub and redeploy those assets to BOS and NYC. 

 

[elrodvt]

As an aside I used to fly jfk to nrt all the time. 35 times I think. 

The day my company switched their contract to AA was a sad one. I can't imagine why anyone would fly AA if ANA or JAL have flights. Other than if they're undercutting the price of course.

The upper deck on those ANA 747's was so nice and the service and food couldn't compare. The good ol days in the early 2000's. Plus if you could get a ticket on 9/11, as I always tried to do, the plane was empty. Is traffic still down that date? 

[hinsp0]

On 6/8/2023 at 9:57 PM, BarrenLucidity said:

50% of them may even be operational. 

100% of the time… they work 50% of the time…

[go_vertical]

[LKN704]

God help us all:

https://airlineweekly.com/2023/06/american-airlines-targets-800-daily-charlotte-flights-with-new-runway/

AA would like to add an additional 20 arrivals/departures to each bank (of which there are currently nine) by 2028 or an increase of roughly ~180 to 200 departures from where AA currently is today. AA had 700 departures/day during the Summer of 2019, so the growth plan would be a net increase of 100 departures than what the connecting complex ever had.

I cannot understand where the terminal capacity for such a plan will come from. They will gain the five Delta gates on old Concourse A next year, but those five gates will only allow an additional 35 flights/day, assuming each gate serves seven departures/arrivals each day. 

[TCLT]

1 hour ago, LKN704 said:

God help us all:

https://airlineweekly.com/2023/06/american-airlines-targets-800-daily-charlotte-flights-with-new-runway/

AA would like to add an additional 20 arrivals/departures to each bank (of which there are currently nine) by 2028 or an increase of roughly ~180 to 200 departures from where AA currently is today. AA had 700 departures/day during the Summer of 2019, so the growth plan would be a net increase of 100 departures than what the connecting complex ever had.

I cannot understand where the terminal capacity for such a plan will come from. They will gain the five Delta gates on old Concourse A next year, but those five gates will only allow an additional 35 flights/day, assuming each gate serves seven departures/arrivals each day. 

Once A North II opens AA will be up to around 100 or so gates. 7-8 flights per gate per day is heavy use but should be doable. AA has also pulled down their regional flying the last couple years because the regional airlines are having trouble staffing the flight decks. Assuming the pilot situation changes they should be able to restore or even grow the regional ops which will boost the flight numbers. The article touches on that point. In any case AA would definitely be pushing the terminal to its limits with 800 flights.

The B and/or C extensions could also be complete by 2028, right? That would be about 10 more gates each, but I assume the 800 flight number in the article didn't include those.