Jetjack74 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 7366 posts, RR: 51 Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3667 times:
Quoting SailorOrion (Thread starter): I heard that there is some kind of Master Plan at PHL to reconfigure the runways in the next 10, 15 years. Is there a detailed layout plan anywhere? What is the status of the plan?
PHL is a disaster. It was a usable design when it was built, but the current layout is anything but usable with todays traffic. The only sensible design I saw in the FAA study was the ATL inspired design. Or the possibility could lie with a DTW style terminal, modeled after airports in KIX, and PVG. But with all terminal ops on one side, using the far 9L-27R is a nightmare and time consuming when taxiing back to the terminal. The finger-like terminals are inefficient for todays operations. If one aircraft at the end of the finger backs out into the alley-way, all others are forced to hold in position until it clears. Yes, PHL needs addressing. I avoid PHL like the plague when I fly in to see the parents
TOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3249 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3624 times:
I pass thru PHL weekly, and yes, its a mess. The possible purchase of DL by US could spell some major changes for PHL. Because of ATC constraints, PHL is frequently subjected to flow control holds. If US is successful in purchasing PHL, it might make more sense to pull PHL down as a full hub, and focus on O&D traffic instead. A combined DL/US would be able to spread connecting traffic across a large number of small/medium sized hubs and/or focus cities.
PHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7425 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3600 times:
Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 4): If US is successful in purchasing PHL, it might make more sense to pull PHL down as a full hub, and focus on O&D traffic instead.
Not going to happen. Since it's US grabbing DL (and NOT the other way around); PHL is not only a hub for US but its their main international gateway. In comparison, DL has a much smaller presence at PHL... which is why WN would LUV to see DL move out of E (over to A-East). What prevented that move from happening was US wanting to add international flights out of PHL.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
Jlbmedia From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 617 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3511 times:
Do you see a continued expansion of the PHL hub by a combined US/DL, both domestic and International, especially with the number of large hubs in their system and the continuing problems at PHL, in spite of the large O & D market they have? John.
Vega From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 3438 times:
Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 4): If US is successful in purchasing PHL, it might make more sense to pull PHL down as a full hub, and focus on O&D traffic instead. A combined DL/US would be able to spread connecting traffic across a large number of small/medium sized hubs and/or focus cities.
So you propose that US downsize their largest Revenue/Profit center with it's 18+M O&D passengers because the airport is not optimally designed? The majority of publicized problems at PHL (baggage, etc..) are due to US Airways personnel and US's refusal, until recently, to provide adequate funding to improve the work environment - not the airport design.
Quoting Jlbmedia (Reply 6): Do you see a continued expansion of the PHL hub by a combined US/DL, both domestic and International, especially with the number of large hubs in their system and the continuing problems at PHL, in spite of the large O & D market they have?
The only alternative to NE bound Euro traffic in the US/DL system is JFK. DLs operation at JFK is at best chaotic and the terminal itself is old and worn - no where near the quality of the international services at PHL (Terminal A). Here is an article on DL's woes at JFK, which support my personal observations: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/colum...telli/2006-11-10-brancatelli_x.htm
If all the Hubs in the U.S. that solicited the "I avoid "X" like the plague" comments on message boards were avoided, we'd have to avoid LAX, ORD and ATL and others as well as PHL. The important high revenue business and international traveler use an airport because it's convenient and gets them from "A" to "B". not because it instills a sense of being in a Las Vegas resort. PHL needs to be upgraded and the city and FAA are working on it, as illustrated in the previous post reference.
Silentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1875 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3251 times:
Quoting Jlbmedia (Reply 2): The link below is from the recent town meetings the F.A.A. had with PHL's surrounding communities. The diagrams showing the several runway layout changes start around page 17.
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3214 times:
Thanks a lot John for the link. How likely is any of this going to happen?
I've looked through the alternatives, and I'm not sure about which is preferable.
Alternative A is the easiest to build, but still leaves the terminal problem. Also, you have to cross two runways from the new one to the terminal which doesn't help a lot either, 17/35 doesn't seem to help anything then (crossing the paths of 4 runways). In east operations, there seem to be no approaches to 9L because of the UPS facility, so east ops + IFR == muddle.
Alternative B is a nice intermediate alternative but you still have all the runways on one side, screaming for ground congestion. Operation:
1) Build new runway.
2) Close 17/35.
3) Rebuild terminal area.
Alternative C is very efficient, but difficult to build; I could envision the following operation:
1) Replace the UPS facility
2) Contruct southern runway (new 9R/27L). This allows dual arrival streams in IFR during west ops (27L + 26). Problem ist east ops. One arrival stream once 17 is closed.
3) Revamp current 9R/27L (taxiway) and rename it to 9L/27R
4) Remove current 9L/27R
5) Close 17/35.
6) Build Main Terminal and satellites, connected with APM.
7) Relocate Cargo city.
8) Tear down current terminal and Cargo facilities
9) Lengthen 8/26 and rename to 8R/26L.
10) Build 8L/26R.
11) Voila, you have a brand new airport in about 6 years. Can easily handle 150 operations per hour in IFR conditions.
That could be an option to consider, which would enable them to build a terminal extension with a different design. They could maybe fit another 2 satellites in that area, then relocate airlines from D and E. Then they could rebuild those with satellites instead of the finger piers. Once they are rebuilt, move everything into there from B and C, then B and C could be rebuilt.
Usairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3245 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3063 times:
Well it appears that in all the plans they want to relocate UPS which presents an interesting situation.
Also is it just me or does it seem that there will be less parking with these plans. Plan A keeps most of the current garages but then wipes out long term and then adds more terminals. Plan A replaces the current garages with 2 at what they are calling the "ground transportation center" yet there appears to be an increase in terminal space and i don't see any long term lots. Plan C replaces the current garages with 3 at the "ground transportation center" and appears to eliminate long term parking.
Also with respect to this "ground transportation center" does it appear that it will be big enough to handle all of the check-in counters and baggage claim areas for all the airlines at the airport.
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2971 times:
The "GTC" seems to be of adequate size for the Check in counters and baggage reclaim areas.
I've studied the alternative C a little more. In the list above, I of course forgot to mention the construction of the new ATCT. When the new south runway is being built, the current ATCT will have to go, but the new one cannot be built yet (because 17/35) is in the way. Thus, an intermediate ATCT might be needed.
When looking at the terminals, it might be nice to have Terminal A for the international flights (because it offers ample space for immigration and customs). B-J would then take the domestic load.
Approaches would be done on the outer runways (to get the MAs away), apart from heavies maybe. In case of very heavy traffic, the whole system could operate virtually without runway crossings, by accepting longer taxi times.
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2763 times:
C would be possible. In worse case, you have three parallel runways open, so it's no worse than the current layout once 17/35 is closed due to crosswinds. However, in west operations (most of the time) you could do two arrival streams even in IFR conditions (new runway and 26).
It is, however, the most expensive option by far, because every damn building on the entire airport will more or less be torn down and rebuilt. The only thing that more or less stays intact is the current 9R/27L.
Silentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1875 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2758 times:
My last post was a bit simplistic. My concern with plan C is that it would create so many problems during the construction as to be unrealistic. There would have to be a major reduction in service during the construction and I'm sure no airline wants to lose slots in the interim.
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2748 times:
I'm not so sure whether you'd actually lose any "slots". But lets have a more detailed look.
1) Relocate ATCT from current location to somewhere near the current terminal or cargo city. Build new fire station.
-No capacity lost.
2) Replace the UPS facility
-No capacity lost
3) Contruct southern runway (new 9R/27L).
-Some increase in capacity during VFR, significant increase in capacity during IFR (in that case, current 9R/27L is not in use).
4) Revamp current 9R/27L (taxiway) and rename it to 9L/27R
No significant loss of capacity in IFR, there's still more than currently. Approaches to 26 and 27L in West Ops, Approaches to 9R and OLD 9L in East Ops.
5) Remove current 9L/27R
Things are getting ugly during East Ops. Only one arrival stream (9R) departures from new 9L and 8.
6) Close 17/35.
7) Build Main Terminal and satellites, connected with APM.
8) Relocate Cargo city.
9) Tear down current terminal and Cargo facilities
10) Lengthen 8/26 and rename to 8R/26L.
11) Build 8L/26R.
If need be, 26/8 can be lengthend by 1000ft in between (before step 4).
It all comes down to one question: If you have lots of bad weather during East Ops, things are difficult. West ops are not a problem (70% of the time).