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.