MIflyer12 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

So, yeah, it gets down to FAA $. Why spend the extra $50-100 million for the extra 2,000 ft of runway which isn't likely to be used even four times a day - if ever in the next decade.

Personally I'm of the opinion that when it comes to infrastructure and especially airport infrastructure it's always better to over build. You take what you can get when you can get it because it's only a matter of time until the nimbys and environmentalists come calling and put a stop to any future expansion. Just look at MUC who chose to do the sensible thing and build only 2 runways because that was all that was needed at the time even tho they had approval for 3 runways. They are kicking themselves now for being sensible.

It's nice to spend other people's money. If AA was paying for it - say, through a per departure or per ton fee allocated across all CLT departures - do you think they'd want it?

And where does the "FAA money" come from? That's a very negative way to look at this and why infrastructure in this country is so poor. There is no planning for the future. It's all reactionary. We're always patching up infrastructure after it's fallen apart.

What is with the obsession in this country with shortening runways? Scared of progress?

Super80Fan wrote:

What is with the obsession in this country with shortening runways? Scared of progress?

It is because of progress that we don’t really need these super long runways in the first place.

Has DEN ever really needed 16,000' of runway? Does SLC really still need to expand one of their 12,000' runways to 15,000? While both are hot and high, the demand may not dictate the infrastructure investment...

What I'm curious about is how, if at all, this changes the design. If you look at how they plan to taxi to the new runway, they were going to build elongated "U" shaped taxiways on the north & south ends apparently so they could continue to use the inner most runway while an aircraft taxied to the new runway. It will be interesting to see if the plan still works.

Heights wrote:

So if I’m understanding this, both CLT and RDU’s proposals to build a new 12,000 foot and 11,500 foot runway respectively have been shortened/modified?

Why?

Its strange.

Looks like the longest civilian runway in the Carolinas is the (fairly) new 11500ft runway at Kinston.

If Kinston, of all places, can get an 11500ft runway, you'd think CLT or RDU would be able to...

KarlB737 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Where are they trying to fly for a 12,000ft runway to be necessary? Asia? Hell, Australia? Lol

Not that any current airlines serving CLT are using the A380 maybe the airport was looking down the road to future international possibilities. I state this fully realizing that A380 production will grind to a halt in the not to distant future. So in the interest of trying to at least speculate why CLT wanted this much concrete how much length is required for a fully loaded A380 to take off and to land with more than enough length. If there is any merit to my theory CLT could have expressed the need for 12,000 ft. prior to the decision by Airbus to call it quits on the A380

The A380 needs less runway than a 748. 10000ft is fine.

mikejepp wrote:

Its strange.

Looks like the longest civilian runway in the Carolinas is the (fairly) new 11500ft runway at Kinston.

If Kinston, of all places, can get an 11500ft runway, you'd think CLT or RDU would be able to...

Kinston is a former military field - US Navy in WWII then the USAF in the 1950s.

Moose135 wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

Its strange.

Looks like the longest civilian runway in the Carolinas is the (fairly) new 11500ft runway at Kinston.

If Kinston, of all places, can get an 11500ft runway, you'd think CLT or RDU would be able to...

Kinston is a former military field - US Navy in WWII then the USAF in the 1950s.

Their runway was 7500ft until the early 2000s and then extended an additional 4000 feet.

SLCUT2777 wrote:

Has DEN ever really needed 16,000' of runway? Does SLC really still need to expand one of their 12,000' runways to 15,000? While both are hot and high, the demand may not dictate the infrastructure investment...

The altitude at DEN is fairly extreme for a major hub. That altitude really degrades take-off performance and toss in heat and the runway length actually isn't excessive. The number wasn't picked out of a hat. They had to account for long haul and ULH flights out of DEN at the height of summer heat.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

SLCUT2777 wrote:

Has DEN ever really needed 16,000' of runway? Does SLC really still need to expand one of their 12,000' runways to 15,000? While both are hot and high, the demand may not dictate the infrastructure investment...

The altitude at DEN is fairly extreme for a major hub. That altitude really degrades take-off performance and toss in heat and the runway length actually isn't excessive. The number wasn't picked out of a hat. They had to account for long haul and ULH flights out of DEN at the height of summer heat.

This and DEN was an alternate for the Space Shuttle.

mikejepp wrote:

Moose135 wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

Its strange.

Looks like the longest civilian runway in the Carolinas is the (fairly) new 11500ft runway at Kinston.

If Kinston, of all places, can get an 11500ft runway, you'd think CLT or RDU would be able to...

Kinston is a former military field - US Navy in WWII then the USAF in the 1950s.

Their runway was 7500ft until the early 2000s and then extended an additional 4000 feet.

The extension was part of the attempt to lure FedEx for their mid-Atlantic hub if I remember correctly. It ultimately went to GSO...sort of.

Here’s my question then. I’m in alignment with the understanding that the 12,000 foot runway was to open up the possibility of and accommodate Asia flights one day. If it’s deemed that 12k feet isn’t necessary or pragmatic, I get that. However, why build the runway at all? The plan is/was to put it in between two of the existing parallel runways. In doing so, what do you gain by putting another 10,000 foot runway?

The current 3 parallels are spaced for 3 simultaneous landings. The 4th runway doesn’t change that. I guess it could conceivably help with offsetting inbound/departure traffic, but it seems to me there are bigger needs (taxi space, gates, etc.) that would be a better use of funds than building a new runway that doesn’t have a unique characteristic.

airbazar wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

So, yeah, it gets down to FAA $. Why spend the extra $50-100 million for the extra 2,000 ft of runway which isn't likely to be used even four times a day - if ever in the next decade.

Personally I'm of the opinion that when it comes to infrastructure and especially airport infrastructure it's always better to over build. You take what you can get when you can get it because it's only a matter of time until the nimbys and environmentalists come calling and put a stop to any future expansion. Just look at MUC who chose to do the sensible thing and build only 2 runways because that was all that was needed at the time even tho they had approval for 3 runways. They are kicking themselves now for being sensible.

Absolutely. "If you build it they will come." And then they will block you from doing anything more.

Not sure why there would be flights from KCLT to such remote locations in the near future, whether with a 10,000’ runway or 12,000’ runway. But in any event, taking a quick technical look at a hypothetical flight from say KCLT to RKSI with a B777F at an estimated flight time of around 14.5-15 hours, with typical route waypoints, winds aloft input, calculated payload, ZFW, and total block fuel, TO Thrust no Derate, for an assumed February winter flight (12C OAT) etc. ….based on a nominal 10,000’ runway (KCLT current runway 18C length), the maximum takeoff weight would be around 725,000 lbs. (around 95% of max. t’off wt.) to arrive at a conservative (code “field”) takeoff margin of around 500 ft.

Assuming a takeoff on the same runway only in summer at 35C OAT, the maximum takeoff weight would be around 693,000 lbs. (around 90% of max. t’off wt) to arrive at a conservative (code “field”) takeoff margin of around 500 ft. So, a 10,000’ runway could accommodate that hypothetical flight, but with a significantly reduced payload in summer.

When I was a young kid I flew CHA-CLT-LGA on Eastern 727. I was on 727 gate at the old terminal before a new terminal in several years later. The old terminal had at least 10 gates. Not too sure that I don't know of it.

Q

Well, 10K ft with 1K ft of paved "over run" area at each end would have been sweet. Then anything really needing 12K could have backed up to get it. So shorter taxiways, but full length on the runway.

rajincajun01 wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

Moose135 wrote:

Kinston is a former military field - US Navy in WWII then the USAF in the 1950s.

Their runway was 7500ft until the early 2000s and then extended an additional 4000 feet.

The extension was part of the attempt to lure FedEx for their mid-Atlantic hub if I remember correctly. It ultimately went to GSO...sort of.

Global Trans Park. (Son of Mirabel)

http://www.wilsontimes.com/stories/our- ... yers,93435
GTP as a source of pride, but to eastern North Carolina and the state as a whole, it's a blunder, a boondoggle, an albatross around our collective necks.
Since 1992, the Global TransPark's jet-engine hype has sucked in between $200 million and $300 million in taxpayer money, the John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal reported, and the state-owned industrial park has provided precious little return on that investment.

Q wrote:

When I was a young kid I flew CHA-CLT-LGA on Eastern 727. I was on 727 gate at the old terminal before a new terminal in several years later. The old terminal had at least 10 gates. Not too sure that I don't know of it.

Q

The new (current) terminal opened 5/2/82. 36L/18R (renamed 36C/18C) opened 6/20/79. The old terminal had about 15 gates. Here is a pic of it in 1971 showing all the gates before Eastern expanded their main concourse by two gates in 1973.

https://dilemmaxdotnet.files.wordpress. ... t_1971.jpg

The 12000 for runway was supposed to be used by the American 737s who, when using 36C, use the hill on the side of Old Dowd Road to force themselves into the air.

CLTRampRat wrote:

The 12000 for runway was supposed to be used by the American 737s who, when using 36C, use the hill on the side of Old Dowd Road to force themselves into the air.

Ain't that the truth! I've seen some of those go by at eye level from the overlook...

Moose135 wrote:

CLTRampRat wrote:

The 12000 for runway was supposed to be used by the American 737s who, when using 36C, use the hill on the side of Old Dowd Road to force themselves into the air.

Ain't that the truth! I've seen some of those go by at eye level from the overlook...

Yet the Southwest 737s of all variations are off by the diagonal runway and vertical.