Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could United Ever Take Over Concourse A/B At IAD?  
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4252 times:

Instead of building a new permanent midfield concourse just for United at Dulles, could MWAA just move United into the current midfield concourse (A/B) and build a new C for all the other carriers at Dulles? This would make sense for many reasons: No need to deal with the "low A" regional concourse since United would just remain there, no need to extend the aeroTrain in order to build out a full-length C/D midfield concourse, the current A/B is too large for the amount of carriers at Dulles but would be perfect for United's operation. A new concourse built on top of the already-existing C aeroTrain station could be large enough just to accomodate the evening rush at Dulles (and smaller than what United would require if they built their own concourse).

The only thing that would need to be modified at A/B would be to put in an FIS facility. Otherwise very little would need to change. It has an excellent mix of domestic mainline, international, and regional gates.

Of all the potential solutions floating around, this is probably the most cost-effective for all of the parties involved. Thoughts?

[Edited 2012-02-06 12:22:44]

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4230 times:

I'd think that if they were gonna do that, they would have  

United probably will want a totally custom concourse. And I think they can afford to do it.

NS


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5285 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4147 times:

I think IAD still envisions enormous growth. It's hard to say if that growth will happen in the era of federal government belt-tightening and increasing bias toward city living, but building a stub terminal C would not allow for much growth. The full-length C/D is, believe it or not, only one part of an enormous master plan that would result in an airport about the size of ATL.

Also, there's this:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 1):
United probably will want a totally custom concourse.

UA knows it did the right thing with Terminal 1 at ORD. I'm sure it would love a similar marvel here.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineunited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4054 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):

UA knows it did the right thing with Terminal 1 at ORD. I'm sure it would love a similar marvel here.

Agreed although with a little more waiting space at the gates...


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3935 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter):
Instead of building a new permanent midfield concourse just for United at Dulles, could MWAA just move United into the current midfield concourse (A/B) and build a new C for all the other carriers at Dulles? This would make sense for many reasons: No need to deal with the "low A" regional concourse since United would just remain there, no need to extend the aeroTrain in order to build out a full-length C/D midfield concourse, the current A/B is too large for the amount of carriers at Dulles but would be perfect for United's operation. A new concourse built on top of the already-existing C aeroTrain station could be large enough just to accomodate the evening rush at Dulles (and smaller than what United would require if they built their own concourse).


MWAA has **two** teacher's pets at Dulles -- not one.

One is UA which has the entire C/D concourse. The other is AF which gets anything it asks for -- in as much as Dulles is its highest-yielding station in North America.

If AF wants itself, KL, DL, and the rest of Skyteam in A/B, then that's the way it will be .   


User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 1):
United probably will want a totally custom concourse. And I think they can afford to do it.

In a perfect world, I'm sure they would want a full linear concourse including RJ gates with AeroTrain stops at both ends. Whether they along with MWAA can afford this is another story...

I'm a lot more optimistic than I was a year ago though. With United adding service at Dulles, it's becoming clear that they intend to grow it to complement Newark. This probably means that more and more international cities that have service to Newark will get service to Dulles. Just like Delta with New York and Atlanta.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):

I think IAD still envisions enormous growth.
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
The full-length C/D is, believe it or not, only one part of an enormous master plan that would result in an airport about the size of ATL.

Yes, in the long, long term. Luckily, unlike most airports, they have almost unlimited room to grow. They could easily tomorrow build the same number of concourses that Atlanta has if they so desired.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
and increasing bias toward city living

I think this will help Dulles. If Tysons Corner becomes the next Arlington, as they are currently planning, then hundreds of thousands of more people will be living in urban areas down the road from Dulles.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
but building a stub terminal C would not allow for much growth.

I disagree. Right now, the gates at Dulles are underused. I think that one of the reasons there has been a lack of a sense of urgent need to build a second permanent concourse is because the A/B terminal is pretty empty for most of the day. Long-term of course they will eventually need more space. But in the next 10 years? Who knows.

Hence my idea for the stub. Use the stub concourse for the international rush and assorted other flights, and use A/B for United's hub. I guess it comes down to whether United is ready to commit $$$ to a custom concourse.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 2):
UA knows it did the right thing with Terminal 1 at ORD. I'm sure it would love a similar marvel here.

Hope so. If United did build a custom C/D at IAD, they would have one of the best terminal lineups in the United States.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5285 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3785 times:

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 5):
If Tysons Corner becomes the next Arlington, as they are currently planning, then hundreds of thousands of more people will be living in urban areas down the road from Dulles.

This is a great point... but it will take awhile before Tysons fills up with residents. Maybe by then UA and MWAA will come up with a plan to build the new C/D.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 5):
Right now, the gates at Dulles are underused.

But if you replace the current C/D with a stub C, the gates won't be underused anymore. A stub C significantly smaller than the current C/D would have just enough gates to handle the international rush, and no more. And there will surely be some growth in the next 10 years, just not enough to fill three new concourses.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 4):
The other is AF which gets anything it asks for -- in as much as Dulles is its highest-yielding station in North America.

No airline with one flight a day, even one that prints cash and uses an A380, can possibly have the same amount of clout as a fortress hub operator. At IAD, what UA wants (and wants to pay for), UA will get.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinefutureualpilot From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2602 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
No airline with one flight a day, even one that prints cash and uses an A380, can possibly have the same amount of clout as a fortress hub operator.

I think he was saying that IAD is the biggest money maker for Air France of any of its markets in the US. I don't know if it is but I'm just trying to help clarify the point.



Life is better when you surf.
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3671 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
This is a great point... but it will take awhile before Tysons fills up with residents. Maybe by then UA and MWAA will come up with a plan to build the new C/D.

Sooner than we realize. The metro opens there in 2013, quite a few developers have announced plans and committed to build there. By 2015, there should be a noticeably larger population there than today. By 2020 and beyond, I have no doubt it will resemble the Rosslyn-Ballston cooridor.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
But if you replace the current C/D with a stub C, the gates won't be underused anymore. A stub C significantly smaller than the current C/D would have just enough gates to handle the international rush, and no more. And there will surely be some growth in the next 10 years, just not enough to fill three new concourses.

In a swap, the A/B gates wouldn't be underused anymore; the new stub C gates would be underused--Until growth happens. Also, a stub C could easily be expanded to a full-length C/D as growth dictates.

I'm all for a custom-built full-length C/D replacement for United. I just don't see it happening anytime soon. I'll never understand why MWAA didn't tunnel the aeroTrain to D (even if they didn't want to operate the physical trains there until a new concourse was built).

A swap with a stub C concourse though would lead to a more efficient allocation of resources, allow the United hub to continue to flourish, and allow for quick, easy future expansion as growth dictates.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
No airline with one flight a day, even one that prints cash and uses an A380, can possibly have the same amount of clout as a fortress hub operator. At IAD, what UA wants (and wants to pay for), UA will get.

Agree 100% Ultimately MWAA and United will have to reach an accommodation, and the plan proposed above is certainly not far-fetched.


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3590 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 6):
No airline with one flight a day, even one that prints cash and uses an A380, can possibly have the same amount of clout as a fortress hub operator. At IAD, what UA wants (and wants to pay for), UA will get.

Then I suspect it will happen about the same time UA redecorates gates 60-88 at LAX


User currently offlinehiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2165 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3312 times:

ok first off no customs a/b...all has to be sent to the main terminal for clearing which does not allow a hub operation so end of that.

second UA has just announced a hangar at IAD so growth is forecasted by the company

I would expect a full c/d announcement soon.....details have already been worked out about IAH and ORD and announced.....but your mileage may vary...grin


User currently offlineual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3289 times:

Quoting futureualpilot (Reply 7):
I think he was saying that IAD is the biggest money maker for Air France of any of its markets in the US.

No, he was clearly saying that AF with one flight a day can dictate to IAD that what we want we will get and for the reasons others are stating above that is complete nonsense.


User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 3220 times:

Quoting hiflyer (Reply 10):
ok first off no customs a/b...all has to be sent to the main terminal for clearing which does not allow a hub operation so end of that.

With all due respect, does anyone read an entire post before commenting? I said this in the original post!! A/B has international gates with sterile areas leading to the people movers; adding an FIS facility in the concourse would not be the most difficult project ever.

Quoting hiflyer (Reply 10):
I would expect a full c/d announcement soon.....details have already been worked out about IAH and ORD and announced.....but your mileage may vary...grin

I hope you are right and that they actually commit the $$ to do it right meaning a full-length C/D concourse with AeroTrain stations at BOTH ends and enough RJ gates to replace the "low A" gates. If they do this along with an FIS facility, United would have the hands-down best international-to-domestic connecting hub in the Northeast.


User currently offlineflyiguy From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

When the B concourse was initially built MWAA proposed to United that if they wanted to move there they would have first chance to since they are the primary carrier at IAD. United turned down the offer as it was more expensive to lease than what they were paying at C/D. Years later after B was complete and all the other carriers moved into it, United asked MWAA to build them a new terminal. MWAA showed them the cost and United was floored by the price tag and asked to move into the B terminal. MWAA basically told them that they already had their chance to move and declined so they are now stuck in C/D. United had the oppertunity to move in and declined, now they are regretting it and probably wont build a terminal at IAD for a very long time.

Fly



The opinions I post are of mine and mine alone, not of the airline I work for.
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3137 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 12):
and that they actually commit the $$ to do it right meaning a full-length C/D concourse with AeroTrain stations at BOTH ends

And perhaps an Aerotrain station that's actually in the concourse rather than half a mile away and connected by walkways and tunnels (though I admit I haven't been so healthy in years   ).


User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3102 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 9):
Then I suspect it will happen about the same time UA redecorates gates 60-88 at LAX

UA redecorated LAX in the late 1990s -- circa 1997ish

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 5):
Right now, the gates at Dulles are underused. I think that one of the reasons there has been a lack of a sense of urgent need to build a second permanent concourse is because the A/B terminal is pretty empty for most of the day.

That is most definitately true. UA just repainted and rebranded IAD (looks pretty OK actually, I was just there) so if anything they are probably going to concentrate on keeping service in C/D for as long as they can -- without having to spend money on expansion.

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 5):
I'm a lot more optimistic than I was a year ago though. With United adding service at Dulles, it's becoming clear that they intend to grow it to complement Newark. This probably means that more and more international cities that have service to Newark will get service to Dulles. Just like Delta with New York and Atlanta.

In the coming years I'll bet IAD will have more flights daily than EWR.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

Quoting flyiguy (Reply 13):
United turned down the offer as it was more expensive to lease than what they were paying at C/D

Yup. Although to be fair, United at that time probably had service to London, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, and maybe Milan? Not nearly as large of a global operation as they have today with non-stop service to Asia, South America, Africa, and the Middle East (plus a lot more to Europe). They have more than doubled their number of international destinations from Dulles in the last few years. I don't particularly blame them for not jumping on A/B in the late 90s when they still had a robust international presence at JFK and MIA and were not as concentrated at Dulles as they become in the years leading up to the merger.

Quoting flyiguy (Reply 13):
United had the oppertunity to move in and declined, now they are regretting it and probably wont build a terminal at IAD for a very long time.

I don't know about that. Time is on the side of all of us who would like to see a new terminal for United at Dulles...Temporary trailers can't last forever! If for no other reason than competitive disadvantage...

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 14):
And perhaps an Aerotrain station that's actually in the concourse rather than half a mile away and connected by walkways and tunnels

Whatever new concourse they do build at Dulles will have the C aerotrain station directly underneath it. And presumably the D one if they tunnel out, although you never know with MWAA  
Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 15):
That is most definitately true. UA just repainted and rebranded IAD (looks pretty OK actually, I was just there) so if anything they are probably going to concentrate on keeping service in C/D for as long as they can -- without having to spend money on expansion.

That's why I think my idea in the original post is pretty good. Dulles gets a smallish new concourse that actually meets current demand levels (and allows for quick future growth in a planned fashion), and United gets a true "hub" operation in one linear, modern concourse. Cheaper for all the parties involved. Heck, there are probably enough gates in A/B to accomodate United during the PM rush AND most if not all of their Star Alliance partners (so Lufthansa, for example, wouldn't have to move their new lounges)


User currently offlineworking2gether From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3048 times:

I think the long term plan for IAD and the new C/D Concourse is for a concourse the same length as the current C/D Concourse with international gates in the middle with domestic and regional gates along the ends. And running through the middle of the concourse would be a FIS facility and a separate AeroTrain station that connects directly to IAB (this is years away).

Why wouldn't United just use the current C/D Concourse until the new Concourse gets built. They would get a brand new and custom Concourse just for them.

I agree that they could move to the A/B Concourse, but it just doesn't seem logical.

I know plenty of others will disagree but those are just my thoughts.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16798 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3040 times:

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 15):
In the coming years I'll bet IAD will have more flights daily than EWR.

I can almost gurantee not in terms of mainline flying, UA has over 200 mainline flights from EWR (about 215) and less than 100 (95 or so) from IAD. UA would have to more than double their number of mainline flights from IAD, that's not happening. If your talking regional aircraft then IAD already has more of those than EWR.

EWR
215 ML
203 R
total:418

IAD
95 ML
252 R
total:347

The huge dispartiy in mainline between EWR and IAD means that IAD may very well surpass EWR in terms of daily flights, thanks to all those regional jets, but the mainline advantage EWR enjoys means it's unlikely IAD could ever surpass EWR in terms of passengers handled per year.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3041 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 15):
UA redecorated LAX in the late 1990s -- circa 1997ish

Okay !

So that's when gates 80-88 got their current funky 50's decor  


User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Quoting working2gether (Reply 17):
I think the long term plan for IAD and the new C/D Concourse is for a concourse the same length as the current C/D Concourse with international gates in the middle with domestic and regional gates along the ends.

Sure, but this is expensive. The cost factor is the primary reason why United didn't start it anytime in the past decade. We haven't really seen huge terminal projects in this country lately. American's T8 at JFK was cut back in size, jetBlue's T5 at JFK was built in a very utilitarian manner. A new C/D at IAD should resemble the Delta terminal at DTW, but it's expensive as heck to build.

Quoting working2gether (Reply 17):
And running through the middle of the concourse would be a FIS facility and a separate AeroTrain station that connects directly to IAB (this is years away).

Years away is an understatement. Probably not in our lifetimes is more like it. Though I agree that it makes sense in building a new C/D for MWAA to at least design plans so that a future connection to the IAB can be built at a later time. Dulles can't function indefinitely with people movers transporting the majority of international passengers to FIS....But that is a whole separate topic!

Quoting working2gether (Reply 17):
I agree that they could move to the A/B Concourse, but it just doesn't seem logical.
Quoting working2gether (Reply 17):
Why wouldn't United just use the current C/D Concourse until the new Concourse gets built.

Building a new full-length C/D, along with tunnelling for another aeroTrain station, will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. United and MWAA might not want to spend that when they have a cheaper potential solution that I outlined in the original post.


User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3030 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 18):
, but the mainline advantage EWR enjoys means it's unlikely IAD could ever

It makes perfect sense that EWR has a mainline advantage over IAD though. EWR has the best elements of JFK and LGA in one airport...


User currently offlineworking2gether From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3025 times:

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 20):
Building a new full-length C/D, along with tunnelling for another aeroTrain station, will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. United and MWAA might not want to spend that when they have a cheaper potential solution that I outlined in the original post.

Totally agree with you on that part. Personally, having flown out of both the A/B and C/D gates numerous times and having worked at IAD, I don't think the C/D gates are all that bad. Yes transferring from an International to a regional or vice versa is a pain but it can be done.

The C/D may be extremely crowded during the afternoon rush but it's still bearable. You'll always hear people saying how when boarding starts in the C/D gates, you can't walk past because passengers spill out into the walkways between the gates. But in the afternoon rush in the A/B gates, you have the same issue, only it seems better cuz the corridors are wider.

The A/B concourse might be newer and better, but honestly, C/D gates do their jobs just as fine.


User currently offlineworking2gether From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3025 times:

Oh and here's a basic design of the new C/D Concourse, if anyone was interested.

http://www.kpf.com/project.asp?R=1&ID=60


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 3020 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting working2gether (Reply 17):
I agree that they could move to the A/B Concourse, but it just doesn't seem logical.

I know plenty of others will disagree but those are just my thoughts.

This is Washington, yes? Lots of weird s**t happens here every day.

So literally anything can happen at Dulles if the price is right.


25 seabosdca : Does it mostly work, in the sense that people get onto their flights? Yes. Is it a pleasant experience? No. Walking can be very complicated because t
26 TOMMY767 : Oh, well I've never been down 80-88. It's only once in a blue moon that United tows an Airbus into that concourse. All the action is from 70-77 (and
27 kgaiflyer : That would make it look similar to DEN. That's nice
28 kgaiflyer : I fly UA and CO about 50 /50 . I agree 100% .
29 Post contains images CODC10 : IAD is far more important to AF than AF is to IAD. One A380 or 77W landing fee is the same regardless of whether it's full of fare-paying F pax or ru
30 hiflyer : Yup...it would be a long term project to convert...there are no sterile corridors connecting 20 or more gates so all would have to be built on the OU
31 D L X : It would save them a lot of money to put the big international jets on the end (closer to the runways) and the little regional jets in the middle.
32 washingtonian : This design is from like a decade ago or so. For what it's worth, when the C aeroTrain station opened 2 years back MWAA hung a poster showing the "fu
33 LHCVG : You got that right! That was my thought - IAD being their highest-yielding NA destination means that IAD gets whatever they want, because AF doesn't
34 D L X : I am talking about fuel burn. Delta saved a whole lot of money by moving its big jets to the positions closest to the runways in Atlanta. An RJ's MTO
35 washingtonian : Very interesting point. For what it's worth, I've always thought that with a full-length C/D replacement, United should put the international gates a
36 capitalflyer : One minor problem, doesn't C/D have more gates than HiA/B? United wouldn't fit in A/B. I think a full C/D is what will happen. United will have to pay
37 gigneil : I really don't get when people say a government agencies are tapped out. They can raise money for any project they commit to. NS
38 washingtonian : Yes, but not all of C/D is used. In fact, there are many gates in D that are dead and freaky to walk past. I think that United could easily fit in hi
39 bjorn14 : A little bit OT but any progress report on the Silver Line to IAD?
40 kgaiflyer : They're certainly not wasted. Having arrived at IAD after midnight many times, I've seen everything but turboprops RON using the upper D gates.
41 Post contains links washingtonian : The first half of it is supposed to open in late 2013; it's pretty impressive to drive out towards Dulles and see the elevated tracks already! There
42 DCA-ROCguy : What sort of shape is MWAA in for committing themselves to more debt? They already have added billions of dollars in debt for the Aerotrain, security
43 working2gether : My understanding is that after the new Concourse is built, it would allow enough taxiway room for 2 A380 planes to taxi side by side. So the new Conc
44 united787 : I could see UA having to pay for most if not all of a C/D replacement but UA demanding that MWAA pay to extend the AeroTrain to the new D.
45 washingtonian : I just don't see this happening. MWAA has to be involved one way or another, either by paying for the AeroTrain (see united787's pst) or by contribut
46 FlyPNS1 : Sure they can raise money, but the cost to payback that money will be astronomical. This means very high landing fees, rents, etc and will undermine
47 boilerla : Try billions. Last estimate was around $2 billion, which given MWAA's ability to estimate, means $5 billion. And those estimates were given years ago
48 gigneil : ITS CRAZY. I am so shocked by how fast its moving. NS
49 Post contains images bjorn14 : Great does that mean they can now start at the IAD end and meet in the middle?
50 DCA-ROCguy : Build as much of C as seems financially suitable, then hook it up to what is left of C & D to keep functioning as useful space until such time as
51 Post contains links washingtonian : Here's another question for everyone: For a long-term replacement for the People Movers that are used to transport inbound international passengers to
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Replacing C/D Concourse At IAD posted Thu Dec 16 2010 16:10:54 by capitalflyer
Concourse C/D At IAD posted Mon Mar 2 2009 12:56:27 by RJpieces
United Express' "G" Gates At IAD posted Thu Apr 14 2005 05:23:04 by IADCRJ
Could SWA Take Over All Of Terminal B At Mci? posted Mon Aug 12 2002 14:34:43 by Atcboy73
United At IAD, Private Terminal posted Fri Jul 16 2010 10:15:15 by shieldm1
United Airlines Loses 10 Year Old UM At IAD! posted Fri Aug 29 2008 08:00:54 by OA260
Could Jetblue Take Over An Airline? posted Sat Nov 10 2007 13:36:15 by ATWZW170
Why No Moving Walkway At IAD Concourse B? posted Sun Oct 14 2007 19:36:51 by 7E72004
Is Something Happening At DJ? A Take Over? posted Fri Apr 13 2007 04:03:08 by Sparklehorse12
United To Leave Terminal G At IAD posted Tue Apr 25 2006 19:28:30 by ATLAaron