And there is also the possibility there isn't, the article indicated that the plan was still under negotiations. Also, Doug Parker has been on the record stating DFW's layout is not optimal. At the end of the day, DFW has to do what AA wants, since they are the backbone of the airport.
Just so we're clear, you think AA just goes around telling DFW what to do. Aaaaaand that they want the airport to come up with a plan that would cost, at a wildly optimistic minimum, ten to fifteen times
what a Term F would... After just
having spent 2.7 billion on the TRIP program (we're going to come back to that in a minute)...
Because a guy whos job it is to keep AA from going bankrupt again said the current uncrowded, easy to navigate layout is "not optimal"...
That about sum it up?
Yes, and there is also a fair amount of land to the south where things (parking/hotels) can be relocated so the terminals could be demolished/ replaced ATL style in phases.
Heck, you could start by building the hypothetical south terminal/future Concourse A where the existing Terminal E employee parking is and work your way north, requiring minimal disruption to the existing terminals.
Or, again more realistically, just skip the whole demolishing terminals AA and DFW just finished rebuilding
and simply keep the extra space. I'd say 'problem solved', but there wasn't one in the first place.
If airpots like LGA/JFK can be rebuilt in phases, so can DFW.
We should probably stick to comparing Like items. Having spent several thousand days working both DFW and LAX, there's a good chance that I know both fields very well.
And LAX and DFW are not
similar. They don't even handle the same missions.
The long and short of it is that LAX is not in any way disturbing its current passenger facing foot print. In fact, even with WN's overhaul of T1 and AA's connecting TBIT to T4, we've increased
To get rid of DFW's int'l parkway so we can blow down some relatively new terminals is not something that can be done in the same financial universe as building a Term F.
No matter what the layout they'd go to in such a ridiculous adventure, there's no hope of AA saving even a miniscule percentage of that cost on some imagined "staffing synergies".
The people actually paying for it would be a good start.
A new ATL style layout at DFW would bring in a lot more than 10-15 million passengers a year. The current layout is preventing DFW from reaching its full potential.
in the hell?
I'm not sure what you know about DFW's general operations, but capacity isn't the problem. They've got shed loads of it.
AA could easily increase by that number now
. And yet they haven't. Even in a "booming N Tex economy". This puts a question mark on any
expansion and Hard No on re-laying out a terminal set-up that won't even add gates. For tons of money that no one seems to have.
In fact, where I do
agree with that Dfwrev guy is that Term F may not happen. Don't confuse picking semantics apart with the notion that there have to be any
changes. Term F may be another 10, 20, infinity years away for all we know.
But what won't happen is an entire revamp of a better than average layout because internet people want to be like ATL. It's Term F or nothing.
This is part of the reason why comparisons with LAX are meaningless here. DFW already has plenty of room to grow. And it's already easy to add to that
very cheaply with add'l terminals.
LAX OTOH is busting at the seems. Again, I've spent quite a lot of time working both fields and when it comes to capacity mgmt, there are no valid comparisons. And if there somehow were? Guess what?
LAX has no intention, ever, of ripping out the Century loop so we can be more like ATL. Our new North-South TBITs could only be built because they didn't cover existing infrastructure or harm existing operations. There won't be anything west of the World Way turnout. Ever.
And what are you going do when further expansion is needed afterwards? Build Terminal's G, H, I, etc,
That a serious question? Yes. And just to repeat, hell yes.
Take a look at DFW's layout sometime. You'll even see this on the ground if you ever go there. There's actually some pretty neat rendering online showing the original master plan.
There is all kinds of room to pop up new terminals. South of E even has space for another terminal beyond the employee lot. North of A has tons of space where Express north is. Across the road they have an FBO that could easily be repositioned.
If they wanted to make a real mess of things, they could probably add as many terminals as already exist and come out of it just fine. That would be brutally expensive, and equally pointless. But it would still be lightyears cheaper than anything you're proposing here.
Remember that TRIP program were talking about earlier? For 2.7B's, they refaced some of the older terminals. Refaced.
What exactly do you think adding whole new structure, cutting roads apart while building tunnels while either denying access or
building temporary terminals their access and taxiways will cost?
And what do you think you're going to do to convince Parker to convince his shareholders to pay for that?
Justifying a new Term F, complete with already existing
easements, rail linkage and parkway access will be an uphill battle. Again, that's for something specifically not
involving making a tempo structure elsewhere, new roads etc.
Yeah, the more we look at this the more clear it becomes how ridiculous this idea is.
I know you're really really attached to it. I get that. But I've literally seen more realistic ideas/proposals in that B52 as an airliner
thread. I'm not trying to beat up on you or make ugly baby comments just for fun or anything. This just doesn't have a hope in hell is all.
As someone that has flown through DFW over 100 times, the layout is fine. Its easy using the skylink to switch terminals. I can get from Domestic to/from International with ease. Not everything has to be DEN or ATL. Actually the preferred global design is very different... see AUH, ICN new Beijing airport. ISL (IST in 2019). DFW is fine!.
Indeed. This notion that something needs to be completely done away with just because it's not someone's definition of perfection (even while being better than most other layouts), is just plain silly.
I actually prefer DFW for connections over ATL (not that I really fly AA anymore). ATL is fine too, but a trek between intl'l terminal at F and over to B or A is still longer than anything DFW would take.
This is the largest airport in the world in terms of land size. They have the room to add additional terminals as needed and even linking a far remote terminal will be cheaper than a full rebuild of existing terminals.
Yep. Nailed it.
"Nous ne sommes pas infectés. Il n'y a pas d'infection ici..."