(see page 8-16/8-17) According to the newly updated Master Plan of MKE, the new 7-gate Concourse F will be constructed sometime this year, and be finished sometime in 2012. Does anyone have any more info on this? Thoughts? Comments?
scutfarcus From United States of America, joined May 2000, 352 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
Haven't read anything about that. I'd say it's pretty unlikley though. Given the consolidation likely with the Southwest/Airtran Merger. Wouldn't be a good time to spend money on massive expansion!
m11stephen From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1207 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2451 times:
I have always wondered why isn't there a concourse A or B at MKE?
My opinions, statements, etc. are my own and do not have any association with those of any employer.
MKENut From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 687 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2267 times:
Interesting... I have to see it to believe it though.
burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7411 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2153 times:
I would like to see DL move into this terminal seeing that they practically run all of the current concourse they are in and that one could use an upgrade IMO.
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
knope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2555 posts, RR: 31 Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2077 times:
Quoting adamblang (Reply 4): Quoting m11stephen (Reply 2):
I have always wondered why isn't there a concourse A or B at MKE?
I imagine there were concourses that've since been demolished.
Actually, the letters come from a re-naming which came in the later 80's.
For those not as familiar with MKE, there are three concourses. If you face the terminal from the curb, Concourse C angles off to your left, Councourse D is straight ahead in the middle, and Concocurse E angles off to your right.
The middle concourse...what we call D, was the first one. It was called Concourse A. Expansion in the 60's meant another concourse...the one off to the right which we call E today. But being the second one it was named B. Then in the 70's a third one was added...the one off to the left. That was named C since it was the third one.
So for quite a few years you had Concourse A with gates 1-8, Concourse B with gates 10-19, and Concourse C with gates 20-27. Trouble was twofold. First, the concourses were out of order...going from left to right they were C, A, B. And the gate numbers did not allow expansion. When a hammerhead was proposed to go onto the end of A (today's D) the sequential gate numbers were already in use on another concourse.
So...this is what they did.
C stayed as C and was given gate numbers 26 and lower
A was renamed D and was given gate numbers 27-59
B was renamed E and was given gate numbers 60 and higher
So the three concourses are consecutive letters, there's room in the scheme for Concourse A and B if they ever expand to the left, and room for F and G if they ever expand to the right.
The current scheme is odd...not having an A or B....but it has much more flexiblity and room for logical expansion as needed.
YXwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 800 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2024 times:
Wow! I was just on MKE website Monday (03-06-2011) and did not see anything that said that concourse F was anywhere near being built. However seeing how tight things are at MKE currently I'm not surprised that there are plans to go ahead with the the new Concourse. However, I would have hoped that they would have ditched that design and gone with a mini version of the UA's Terminal 1 at ORD.
Maybe if I make a quick Pelee to Mr. Bateman (MKE's Airport Director) to change the plan of the expansion to my idea. LOL
I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
KGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 622 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1996 times:
Quoting scutfarcus (Reply 1): Given the consolidation likely with the Southwest/Airtran Merger. Wouldn't be a good time to spend money on massive expansion!
Bingo... bango... bongo. Given the budget crisis the state is in, which in turn, means less funding for local governments (Milwaukee County), I'd be VERY surprised to see any investment in unnecessary infrastructure right now (or *necessary* infrastructure, for that matter).
Quoting knope2001 (Reply 6): C stayed as C and was given gate numbers 26 and lower
A was renamed D and was given gate numbers 27-59
B was renamed E and was given gate numbers 60 and higher
Thanks for the info, Knope! I've always wondered about this.
YXwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 800 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1883 times:
Quoting KGRB (Reply 8):
Bingo... bango... bongo. Given the budget crisis the state is in, which in turn, means less funding for local governments (Milwaukee County), I'd be VERY surprised to see any investment in unnecessary infrastructure right now (or *necessary* infrastructure, for that matter).
Actually MKE has not been on the budget of Milwaukee County since 1968. It has been self supporting and only has gone to the county board when they needed bonding for a major project such as this proposed expansion. However, that does not mean that MKE gets any County tax money. The only tax money that have taken in the past 25 years is Federal tax money.
I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
pilotfox From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 541 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1803 times:
Don't plan on any new concourses anytime soon. In the next few years the main projects are in increasing the safety areas of both the main runways, building a inline baggage screening system and reconstructing the baggage claim.
MKE22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1111 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1570 times:
Quoting pilotfox (Reply 10): and reconstructing the baggage claim.
Thank god.. It's about time! Any word on when this is supposed to start/be done?
mke717spotter From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2315 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1486 times:
I don't if this has been decided yet, but does anyone know where the combined UA/CO will operate from? I'd guess CO would ditch their E gates and join UA over in C, just because its a nicer concourse and it seems like there's more spcae over there. That would leave E with four unused gates because no one uses E60/61 right now either.
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
YXwatcherMKE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 800 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1404 times:
You really think that there is more room on "C" versus "E". I would disagree, With only one open gate and UA express and AC Jazz RON a total of 3 A/C and CO RON 3 A/C. That would be very crowded for A/C unless they RON by the International Arrival Building(IAB). They would be better off on "E" with 4 gates even as old as they are. For one they would have a shorty distance to remote RON the A/C. 2nd the rent would be less I would think than over on "C".
I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
MNMncrcnwjr From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 308 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1239 times:
Quoting mke717spotter (Reply 12): I'd guess CO would ditch their E gates and join UA over in C
Seeing that they are now one it would be logical....
IIRC CO on E was the result of the old NW agreement to try to consolidate Sky Team members together NW, DL, CO as was done in other facilities to ease operation issues and pax transfer to shared flights.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1111 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
