This article got me thinking...

https://www.ajc.com/business/hartsfield ... mHV79HiSM/

So does anyone know who will get these gates? I would assume that AA would get a few to consolidate their operation and combine on T and maybe UA the others? I do think that the City of ATL should take the AA "D" gates and make then Common Use. The D1/1A/2/3/4/5 CUTE gates are an absolute third world and embarrassing. NK with its 20+ daily flights, F9 12+ daily flights, AS and multiple B6 flights, you cannot even move. ATL should be embarrassed tbh!

WAIT...so what happened with the gate situation with the AA/US & UA/CO mergers...did both AA & UA have "split" operations? Does AA still have their private baggage claim?

The plan is for the gates to be for UA and AA. This will allow AA to consolidate operations into one area. I believe they will keep the separate baggage claim.

$330,000,000 for 5 gates is absurd. I know other buildings have to relocated and there are other considerations, but really?

Also,while the D gates at Atlanta can be a bit crowded, no part of the Atlanta airport is "3rd world".

Honestly, Atlanta should probably spend the money on building another gate complex somewhere else on the property, perhaps at the north end of the field where Signature is currently located. Build a 55 gate facility there and move Southwest, United, American, Spirit, JetBlue, Frontier, Alaska,and Air Canada, which would give Delta and SkyTeam some much needed breathing room at the current complex which can get horrendously overcrowded.

727LOVER wrote:

WAIT...so what happened with the gate situation with the AA/US & UA/CO mergers...did both AA & UA have "split" operations? Does AA still have their private baggage claim?

UA ran a split operation for a short period of time. They Jammed in an extra gate on the end without building out the terminal building any further, cut ATL-CLE and re-did the schedule and were able to fit everything into their gates on T.

AA has run a split operation ever since their merger. Their T-gate arrivals use their private baggage claim. T-gate flights tend to be ORD, MIA, DFW, LAX & LGA while Concourse D is usually CLT, PHL, DCA, PHX, although I believe occasionally PHX will leave from T, or LGA or MIA from D.

Both UA and AA have fairly new clubs on T.

GSP psgr wrote:

Honestly, Atlanta should probably spend the money on building another gate complex somewhere else on the property, perhaps at the north end of the field where Signature is currently located. Build a 55 gate facility there and move Southwest, United, American, Spirit, JetBlue, Frontier, Alaska,and Air Canada, which would give Delta and SkyTeam some much needed breathing room at the current complex which can get horrendously overcrowded.

There is a plan floating around out there that would put such a terminal over by the existing cargo facility between 10/28 and 9R/27L with access off of Riverdale road (think the area around Riverdale road and the perimeter).

catiii wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

Honestly, Atlanta should probably spend the money on building another gate complex somewhere else on the property, perhaps at the north end of the field where Signature is currently located. Build a 55 gate facility there and move Southwest, United, American, Spirit, JetBlue, Frontier, Alaska,and Air Canada, which would give Delta and SkyTeam some much needed breathing room at the current complex which can get horrendously overcrowded.

There is a plan floating around out there that would put such a terminal over by the existing cargo facility between 10/28 and 9R/27L with access off of Riverdale road (think the area around Riverdale road and the perimeter).

I think they were looking at about maybe 10 years ago, putting a true South terminal to the west of the main taxiway between the 9's and 10. All DL/Skyteam would have remained in the current terminal and all other airlines would have moved to the new complex. I think the feasibility of that died when the three major mergers happened between AA/US/, CO/UA and WN/FL. A lot less need for gates now. Same reason Concourse G will probably get done, but not H-J.

jfern022 wrote:

catiii wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

Honestly, Atlanta should probably spend the money on building another gate complex somewhere else on the property, perhaps at the north end of the field where Signature is currently located. Build a 55 gate facility there and move Southwest, United, American, Spirit, JetBlue, Frontier, Alaska,and Air Canada, which would give Delta and SkyTeam some much needed breathing room at the current complex which can get horrendously overcrowded.

There is a plan floating around out there that would put such a terminal over by the existing cargo facility between 10/28 and 9R/27L with access off of Riverdale road (think the area around Riverdale road and the perimeter).

I think they were looking at about maybe 10 years ago, putting a true South terminal to the west of the main taxiway between the 9's and 10. All DL/Skyteam would have remained in the current terminal and all other airlines would have moved to the new complex. I think the feasibility of that died when the three major mergers happened between AA/US/, CO/UA and WN/FL. A lot less need for gates now. Same reason Concourse G will probably get done, but not H-J.

It probably was that long ago. I hadn't realized the Sheraton was coming down for a 6th runway, which would be over there. https://atlanta.curbed.com/2017/5/15/15 ... aton-hotel

The Admiral's club in ATL T gates has been there a long time. Maybe it recently received a refresh, but I remember being in that club in in late 1990s.

catiii wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

Honestly, Atlanta should probably spend the money on building another gate complex somewhere else on the property, perhaps at the north end of the field where Signature is currently located. Build a 55 gate facility there and move Southwest, United, American, Spirit, JetBlue, Frontier, Alaska,and Air Canada, which would give Delta and SkyTeam some much needed breathing room at the current complex which can get horrendously overcrowded.

There is a plan floating around out there that would put such a terminal over by the existing cargo facility between 10/28 and 9R/27L with access off of Riverdale road (think the area around Riverdale road and the perimeter).

The South Terminal died when none of the not Delta airlines wanted to support it I believe. The current plan has the new sixth runway going through that land and all cargo operations moving to the South Cargo ramps. That would include making the existing South complex larger by tearing down the old Northwest hangar and also adding another complex to the west of the cross taxiway. This would allow FedEx and UPS to vacate the very old north cargo facility.
I think Terminal G is still in the plan also. That would entail moving the Flight Kitchen and possibly some of Delta Cargo. I think moving all of Delta cargo to the south complex is part of the plan. That would concentrate most of the truck traffic to that side of the airport. The traffic to the International terminal in the early am and afternoons can be pretty busy with passengers, cargo trucks and DL TOC all trying to get through one traffic light.

1ffb2002 wrote:

The Admiral's club in ATL T gates has been there a long time. Maybe it recently received a refresh, but I remember being in that club in in late 1990s.

Yes, it was completely refurbished in 2016-17

jfern022 wrote:

catiii wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

Honestly, Atlanta should probably spend the money on building another gate complex somewhere else on the property, perhaps at the north end of the field where Signature is currently located. Build a 55 gate facility there and move Southwest, United, American, Spirit, JetBlue, Frontier, Alaska,and Air Canada, which would give Delta and SkyTeam some much needed breathing room at the current complex which can get horrendously overcrowded.

There is a plan floating around out there that would put such a terminal over by the existing cargo facility between 10/28 and 9R/27L with access off of Riverdale road (think the area around Riverdale road and the perimeter).

I think they were looking at about maybe 10 years ago, putting a true South terminal to the west of the main taxiway between the 9's and 10. All DL/Skyteam would have remained in the current terminal and all other airlines would have moved to the new complex. I think the feasibility of that died when the three major mergers happened between AA/US/, CO/UA and WN/FL. A lot less need for gates now. Same reason Concourse G will probably get done, but not H-J.

The demand for gates may have arguably moderated, but the need for gate space has not. TABCD were built back in the early 1980s and were designed in an era in which Delta was predominantly flying DC-9-30/737-200 sized aircraft as the backbone of their domestic fleet. Now every other gate is a 321/739/752 sized aircraft, and the aircraft in between them are MD-88 and 737-800 sized. During the biggest arrival and departure pushes in the morning and the big transatlantic bank in the evening, Hartsfield is a zoo as currently constructed. With everyone else moved, Delta would be able to better restructure the existing terminals for the passenger loads actually transiting through them by spreading out departures over another 50 gates or so.

That is crazy expensive for 5 gates.

What happen to the plans to expand T to the south and curved back to the west by relocating S. Terminal Drive?

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

That is crazy expensive for 5 gates.

What happen to the plans to expand T to the south and curved back to the west by relocating S. Terminal Drive?

It is absurdly expensive - and already over its $200m budget by $130m. The U.S. is totally out of control for construction costs. A friend of mine says they are now estimating building costs, and then doubling the figure to present it to investors - just because costs are running away so fast. I was struck when the OP said the bad gates are "third world" - because most people who travel a lot know that airports in many countries with far fewer resources than the U.S. are far nicer and work far better. The Feds want to do a study on runaway construction costs, but (according to the same friend) they want to spend $30 million on the study alone because the issue is so complex. They can't figure out why it is so expensive to build in the U.S. Most of Europe, for example, has far better labor standards than the U.S., but it is far cheaper to build there. Overall, its pretty depressing that we may close in on half a billion dollars to build five sh*tty, narrow-body, domestic gates in Atlanta.

Those new gates on T are definitely for AA, so they can consolidate on T and UA. I'm sure AA would love the extra space, they are the 3rd largest carrier at ATL. They have a pretty nice setup with their check in counters right by a TSA screening area away from the main security checkpoint along with the Admirals club, gates and own baggage claim area. Was surprised AA was as large as they are here. That would free up gates on D for other carriers. I'm sure JetBlue, Spirit and Frontier would be happy. Maybe even expand since they would have the extra room. All 3 seem to be doing well in this market. Construction prices are soaring around the country but I agree that is quite expensive for 5 gates!

TTailedTiger wrote:

ATL and the city of Atlanta are notoriously corrupt. I'm not bit surprised at the ridiculous cost for just five gates.

As is most US cities' governments.

GSP psgr wrote:

jfern022 wrote:

catiii wrote:

There is a plan floating around out there that would put such a terminal over by the existing cargo facility between 10/28 and 9R/27L with access off of Riverdale road (think the area around Riverdale road and the perimeter).

I think they were looking at about maybe 10 years ago, putting a true South terminal to the west of the main taxiway between the 9's and 10. All DL/Skyteam would have remained in the current terminal and all other airlines would have moved to the new complex. I think the feasibility of that died when the three major mergers happened between AA/US/, CO/UA and WN/FL. A lot less need for gates now. Same reason Concourse G will probably get done, but not H-J.

The demand for gates may have arguably moderated, but the need for gate space has not. TABCD were built back in the early 1980s and were designed in an era in which Delta was predominantly flying DC-9-30/737-200 sized aircraft as the backbone of their domestic fleet. Now every other gate is a 321/739/752 sized aircraft, and the aircraft in between them are MD-88 and 737-800 sized. During the biggest arrival and departure pushes in the morning and the big transatlantic bank in the evening, Hartsfield is a zoo as currently constructed. With everyone else moved, Delta would be able to better restructure the existing terminals for the passenger loads actually transiting through them by spreading out departures over another 50 gates or so.

ATL designed themselves into a permanent pickle because the concourses are too narrow but there is no practical way to widen them. They build out cubes for seats but they can’t move the columns, they can’t widen the central walkways and they can’t add moving walkways.

Connection from a far B to a crowded far C, only to have them change your gate, is a nightmare.

Dalmd88 wrote:

catiii wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

Honestly, Atlanta should probably spend the money on building another gate complex somewhere else on the property, perhaps at the north end of the field where Signature is currently located. Build a 55 gate facility there and move Southwest, United, American, Spirit, JetBlue, Frontier, Alaska,and Air Canada, which would give Delta and SkyTeam some much needed breathing room at the current complex which can get horrendously overcrowded.

There is a plan floating around out there that would put such a terminal over by the existing cargo facility between 10/28 and 9R/27L with access off of Riverdale road (think the area around Riverdale road and the perimeter).

The South Terminal died when none of the not Delta airlines wanted to support it I believe. The current plan has the new sixth runway going through that land and all cargo operations moving to the South Cargo ramps. That would include making the existing South complex larger by tearing down the old Northwest hangar and also adding another complex to the west of the cross taxiway. This would allow FedEx and UPS to vacate the very old north cargo facility.
I think Terminal G is still in the plan also. That would entail moving the Flight Kitchen and possibly some of Delta Cargo. I think moving all of Delta cargo to the south complex is part of the plan. That would concentrate most of the truck traffic to that side of the airport. The traffic to the International terminal in the early am and afternoons can be pretty busy with passengers, cargo trucks and DL TOC all trying to get through one traffic light.

G concourse is a dead issue, not gonna happen. The old NWA hangar is not going anywhere either. Delta will be adding 5, I believe the number is, new deicing pads between the old NWA hangar and the south cargo facilities. Construction on that will be commencing soon.

TTailedTiger wrote:

n2dru wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

ATL and the city of Atlanta are notoriously corrupt. I'm not bit surprised at the ridiculous cost for just five gates.

As is most US cities' governments.

It seems like some Atlanta politician is ways being indicted or investigated.

By comparison, CVG renovated the entire A concourse for only $1 million.

Corruption in local government is nothing new in ANY major US city. Unfortunately Atlanta is no different. The old NWA hangar WILL come down once the asbestos issue is resolved...the land is too valuable to just sit idle and DL doesn't really need that hangar space. The land is prime for expansion of the cargo facilities on the southside of the airport.

n2dru wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

n2dru wrote:

As is most US cities' governments.

It seems like some Atlanta politician is ways being indicted or investigated.

By comparison, CVG renovated the entire A concourse for only $1 million.

Corruption in local government is nothing new in ANY major US city. Unfortunately Atlanta is no different. The old NWA hangar WILL come down once the asbestos issue is resolved...the land is too valuable to just sit idle and DL doesn't really need that hangar space. The land is prime for expansion of the cargo facilities on the southside of the airport.

Thinking of all the hangars at ATL, which one is the former NWA one?

Super80Fan wrote:

n2dru wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

It seems like some Atlanta politician is ways being indicted or investigated.

By comparison, CVG renovated the entire A concourse for only $1 million.

Corruption in local government is nothing new in ANY major US city. Unfortunately Atlanta is no different. The old NWA hangar WILL come down once the asbestos issue is resolved...the land is too valuable to just sit idle and DL doesn't really need that hangar space. The land is prime for expansion of the cargo facilities on the southside of the airport.

Thinking of all the hangars at ATL, which one is the former NWA one?

South of the terminal complex...Just northeast of the fifth runway ,where it cross the interstate.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I'm guessing that hangar is a relic leftover from the Republic merger?

It is... mainly DC9/ MD80 related service for Republic/NW. Some 727 work was performed before their retirement. A fairly large facility that no longer is used for its initial purpose but will take time to remove because of the asbestos issues.

ikramerica wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

jfern022 wrote:

I think they were looking at about maybe 10 years ago, putting a true South terminal to the west of the main taxiway between the 9's and 10. All DL/Skyteam would have remained in the current terminal and all other airlines would have moved to the new complex. I think the feasibility of that died when the three major mergers happened between AA/US/, CO/UA and WN/FL. A lot less need for gates now. Same reason Concourse G will probably get done, but not H-J.

The demand for gates may have arguably moderated, but the need for gate space has not. TABCD were built back in the early 1980s and were designed in an era in which Delta was predominantly flying DC-9-30/737-200 sized aircraft as the backbone of their domestic fleet. Now every other gate is a 321/739/752 sized aircraft, and the aircraft in between them are MD-88 and 737-800 sized. During the biggest arrival and departure pushes in the morning and the big transatlantic bank in the evening, Hartsfield is a zoo as currently constructed. With everyone else moved, Delta would be able to better restructure the existing terminals for the passenger loads actually transiting through them by spreading out departures over another 50 gates or so.

ATL designed themselves into a permanent pickle because the concourses are too narrow but there is no practical way to widen them. They build out cubes for seats but they can’t move the columns, they can’t widen the central walkways and they can’t add moving walkways.

Connection from a far B to a crowded far C, only to have them change your gate, is a nightmare.

They've also boxed themselves in by letting a lot of expensive, very difficult to move infrastructure be built to the East of Terminal E. Their current plan for domestic gate expansion is confined to....a whole 6-8 gate dogleg off of the T-South at a cost of.....$400-500 million . Which is nuts. $800 million for 13 T gates. They also want to somehow cram another 2 gates each on BCD at yet another couple hundred million.

Honestly, the whole situation sounds like instead of biting one big, but efficient bullet they want to try and squeeze blood out of a rock at a much higher price

GSP psgr wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

The demand for gates may have arguably moderated, but the need for gate space has not. TABCD were built back in the early 1980s and were designed in an era in which Delta was predominantly flying DC-9-30/737-200 sized aircraft as the backbone of their domestic fleet. Now every other gate is a 321/739/752 sized aircraft, and the aircraft in between them are MD-88 and 737-800 sized. During the biggest arrival and departure pushes in the morning and the big transatlantic bank in the evening, Hartsfield is a zoo as currently constructed. With everyone else moved, Delta would be able to better restructure the existing terminals for the passenger loads actually transiting through them by spreading out departures over another 50 gates or so.

ATL designed themselves into a permanent pickle because the concourses are too narrow but there is no practical way to widen them. They build out cubes for seats but they can’t move the columns, they can’t widen the central walkways and they can’t add moving walkways.

Connection from a far B to a crowded far C, only to have them change your gate, is a nightmare.

They've also boxed themselves in by letting a lot of expensive, very difficult to move infrastructure be built to the East of Terminal E. Their current plan for domestic gate expansion is confined to....a whole 6-8 gate dogleg off of the T-South at a cost of.....$400-500 million . Which is nuts. $800 million for 13 T gates. They also want to somehow cram another 2 gates each on BCD at yet another couple hundred million.

Honestly, the whole situation sounds like instead of biting one big, but efficient bullet they want to try and squeeze blood out of a rock at a much higher price

I’ve never understood two things about ATL.

1. Why were A-D not designed the same width? I get that they served different purposes at the time but there seems to have been no forethought as to future growth

2. The simplicity of ATL’s A-D parallel concourses design was great. Why was it not carried out in an early master plan in anticipation of future growth for concourses E and F... G and H?

If anyone yearns for the Christmas shopping mall crowds of yesteryear visit ATL any day of the week. I avoid ATL whenever possible.

questions wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

ATL designed themselves into a permanent pickle because the concourses are too narrow but there is no practical way to widen them. They build out cubes for seats but they can’t move the columns, they can’t widen the central walkways and they can’t add moving walkways.

Connection from a far B to a crowded far C, only to have them change your gate, is a nightmare.

They've also boxed themselves in by letting a lot of expensive, very difficult to move infrastructure be built to the East of Terminal E. Their current plan for domestic gate expansion is confined to....a whole 6-8 gate dogleg off of the T-South at a cost of.....$400-500 million . Which is nuts. $800 million for 13 T gates. They also want to somehow cram another 2 gates each on BCD at yet another couple hundred million.

Honestly, the whole situation sounds like instead of biting one big, but efficient bullet they want to try and squeeze blood out of a rock at a much higher price

I’ve never understood two things about ATL.

1. Why were A-D not designed the same width? I get that they served different purposes at the time but there seems to have been no forethought as to future growth

2. The simplicity of ATL’s A-D parallel concourses design was great. Why was it not carried out in an early master plan in anticipation of future growth for concourses E and F... G and H?

If anyone yearns for the Christmas shopping mall crowds of yesteryear visit ATL any day of the week. I avoid ATL whenever possible.

1. I believe ABC are all roughly the same. D is narrower because it was designed as a Concourse for O&D Traffic for the likes of CO, NW, US, HP, TW, etc...

2. I don't think that back when Delta built all of their TechOps and associated infrastructure to the east of E they ever saw ATL getting this massive. Remember, when it was built in 1980, ATL was a split hub between DL and EA. EA collapsed and DL subsequently became the first airline to build a megahub at ATL.

As for how this impacts Delta in the short to medium term....Atlanta shifts more towards an O&D mix, I think. More connecting traffic starts flowing over Detroit (can absorb another 10-12m passengers annually with ease), their new Salt Lake hub terminal, and Minneapolis (where expansion is easier and cheaper).

Don’t forget boys and girls, the current Atlanta airport was designed in a different era, like a lot of America’s airports.

A, B, and C, were designed by Delta and Eastern. Delta of course originally had A, and the south half of B. Eastern had the north half of B, and C. And of course, remember, Eastern had that shortcut, between the north half of B, and C.

Ever notice that the south half of B, is lower than the north half of B? Eastern designed the north half to their height, Delta designed the south half to their height

Nobody could have guessed 40 years ago, what Atlanta or the aviation industry would be like today. Atlanta is a very well run operation. I have been using it since the new airport was open in 1980. Never, the first problem.

questions wrote:

I’ve never understood two things about ATL.

1. Why were A-D not designed the same width? I get that they served different purposes at the time but there seems to have been no forethought as to future growth

2. The simplicity of ATL’s A-D parallel concourses design was great. Why was it not carried out in an early master plan in anticipation of future growth for concourses E and F... G and H?

If anyone yearns for the Christmas shopping mall crowds of yesteryear visit ATL any day of the week. I avoid ATL whenever possible.

A, B, and C, were designed 40 years ago to Delta and Eastern specs. D was the overflow terminal, designed differently. Who could have guessed 40 years ago, things would be this different. It is easy to be an armchair quarterback.

I love it when people say they avoid the Atlanta airport. In 40 years, of extensive use of the airport, never the first problem.

drdisque wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

WAIT...so what happened with the gate situation with the AA/US & UA/CO mergers...did both AA & UA have "split" operations? Does AA still have their private baggage claim?

UA ran a split operation for a short period of time. They Jammed in an extra gate on the end without building out the terminal building any further, cut ATL-CLE and re-did the schedule and were able to fit everything into their gates on T.

AA has run a split operation ever since their merger. Their T-gate arrivals use their private baggage claim. T-gate flights tend to be ORD, MIA, DFW, LAX & LGA while Concourse D is usually CLT, PHL, DCA, PHX, although I believe occasionally PHX will leave from T, or LGA or MIA from D..

Both AA and UA will occasionally RON flights in Concourse E as well. When AA RONs in E, arriving pax will use the regular North Terminal baggage claim and not the lower-level "private" baggage claim.

questions wrote:

1. Why were A-D not designed the same width? I get that they served different purposes at the time but there seems to have been no forethought as to future growth

Concourse D-south had some of the gates widened (Gate D11, D11A as examples) and the Georgia-clay red facade changed to gray, which is now being used in the massive renovation of all 1980-era concourses. Not sure if the plan is to widen all D-gates in this manner.

A) Whatever happened to the plan to covert E to purely domestic and build G to handle the remaining international flights?

B) As WN draws down ATL in favor of BNA, could this free up some gates on C for DL or others to use?

n2dru wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

n2dru wrote:

As is most US cities' governments.

It seems like some Atlanta politician is ways being indicted or investigated.

By comparison, CVG renovated the entire A concourse for only $1 million.

Corruption in local government is nothing new in ANY major US city. Unfortunately Atlanta is no different. The old NWA hangar WILL come down once the asbestos issue is resolved...the land is too valuable to just sit idle and DL doesn't really need that hangar space. The land is prime for expansion of the cargo facilities on the southside of the airport.

Atlanta though is one of the few (maybe only) airport of its size that is run by the City Council and not an independent airports authority or board.

MIflyer12 wrote:

questions wrote:

I avoid ATL whenever possible.

Too bad. You're avoiding the U.S. airport with more non-stop destinations than any other.

And the easiest hub airport from a connecting passenger standpoint anywhere in the world.

Some people just like to complain. Having lived in ATL this was my home airport for a while and considering the amout of people that flow through here wvery day this place does very well. Sure its busy but what do you expect its a hub. Do people really want a terminal to themselves. The city is always investing in airport its bright always clean much better than 90% other airports in the US. Layout is pretty simple and easy to navigage and remember its not that far from doentown rither so its not a remote airport 45 mins out of city centre

A little off topic but when ATL opened in September 1980, "D" was all others. I remember Frontier had D2, Republic had "D" South. Piedmont had "D" North, except for BN had D-36 and NW had D-35/37 (I think). I forgot where OZ was on "D" North? The others like AA/CO/US/PA/TW came later. All of the "D" gates have been renumbered and airlines thru the years played musical chairs. I know there were a few others on "D" at the time as well. UP was handled by PI. Those were fun times. Of course the dozens + new entrants all were on "D" like CC (Air Atlanta) which took over the BN gate and North end and had its own "Club Lounge: encased for all of its pax. Their pax were also bussed from the North Terminal to their "D" gates so they did not have to deal with the crowds. Tose were fun times... Oh and "T" was the international terminal. I remember EA/DL/LH/BR/SN/KL were there.

TW870 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

That is crazy expensive for 5 gates.

What happen to the plans to expand T to the south and curved back to the west by relocating S. Terminal Drive?

It is absurdly expensive - and already over its $200m budget by $130m. The U.S. is totally out of control for construction costs. A friend of mine says they are now estimating building costs, and then doubling the figure to present it to investors - just because costs are running away so fast. I was struck when the OP said the bad gates are "third world" - because most people who travel a lot know that airports in many countries with far fewer resources than the U.S. are far nicer and work far better. The Feds want to do a study on runaway construction costs, but (according to the same friend) they want to spend $30 million on the study alone because the issue is so complex. They can't figure out why it is so expensive to build in the U.S. Most of Europe, for example, has far better labor standards than the U.S., but it is far cheaper to build there. Overall, its pretty depressing that we may close in on half a billion dollars to build five sh*tty, narrow-body, domestic gates in Atlanta.

ATL loves itself a whole lotta ATL... Their capital projects budget is ridiculously exorbitant. ATL does have one of the biggest PMOs of any airport in the world. Look at that canopy project--it was top shelf, spare no expense. It only needed to be functional, but they chose one of the most expensive options, insofar as constructability, materials, cost, design.

Not surprised that they'd boondoggle a few incremental gates.

MIflyer12 wrote:

questions wrote:

I avoid ATL whenever possible.

Too bad. You're avoiding the U.S. airport with more non-stop destinations than any other.

When I’m connecting through an airport I don’t care that it has more nonstop destinations than any other — my travel plans have been made!

catiii wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

questions wrote:

I avoid ATL whenever possible.

Too bad. You're avoiding the U.S. airport with more non-stop destinations than any other.

And the easiest hub airport from a connecting passenger standpoint anywhere in the world.

No need to try to sell me on ATL, I’ve used the airport from an O&D (resident and visitor) and connecting perspective many times. It’s intuitively designed and an efficient operation that pumps a lot of passengers in and out.

We all have our preferences.

BroadwayLimited wrote:

Ever notice that the south half of B, is lower than the north half of B? Eastern designed the north half to their height, Delta designed the south half to their height

Now that you mention it...

Interesting that EA and DL would have had that much say that the concourse height would be different on each end.

Is the reason for different heights known? What’s was different about their operations? EA and DL had overlapping types in their fleets — DC9, 727, 757, L1011.

Is C lower than A?

catiii wrote:

And the easiest hub airport from a connecting passenger standpoint anywhere in the world.

It's not even close to being the easiest DL hub from a connecting passenger standpoint.

globalflyer wrote:

A little off topic but when ATL opened in September 1980, "D" was all others. I remember Frontier had D2, Republic had "D" South. Piedmont had "D" North, except for BN had D-36 and NW had D-35/37 (I think). I forgot where OZ was on "D" North? The others like AA/CO/US/PA/TW came later. All of the "D" gates have been renumbered and airlines thru the years played musical chairs. I know there were a few others on "D" at the time as well. UP was handled by PI. Those were fun times. Of course the dozens + new entrants all were on "D" like CC (Air Atlanta) which took over the BN gate and North end and had its own "Club Lounge: encased for all of its pax. Their pax were also bussed from the North Terminal to their "D" gates so they did not have to deal with the crowds. Tose were fun times... Oh and "T" was the international terminal. I remember EA/DL/LH/BR/SN/KL were there.

I remember exactly the same ..... and Ozark was on D North ... I flew them May 1984

Fall of 1980 - DL operated DC9-32's, 727-200's, DC-8-61's and L-1011's ... maybe a handful of DC-8-51's
Eastern operated DC9-30's, DC9-50's, 727-100's, 727-200's, L-1011's, and A-300's

I have been going through ATL since 1964 starting at age 10 before the current terminal. I have never had any issues, the airport is very efficient for changing planes. Granted if there is a gate change it is a big pain.

I don't understand the need for moving sidewalks in Atlanta, it is healthy to walk after sitting on a plane for even an hour, we have become too lazy.

Heathrow has some good long walks, after sitting on a plane for 8 hours it is great to walk. We have become too lazy.

Do agree the airport should not be run by the city council , need to establish an airport authority. Atlanta like so many cities has issues with corruption. Appalled at the cost of 5 gates, government construction projects are a real rip off

GSP psgr wrote:

questions wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

They've also boxed themselves in by letting a lot of expensive, very difficult to move infrastructure be built to the East of Terminal E. Their current plan for domestic gate expansion is confined to....a whole 6-8 gate dogleg off of the T-South at a cost of.....$400-500 million . Which is nuts. $800 million for 13 T gates. They also want to somehow cram another 2 gates each on BCD at yet another couple hundred million.

Honestly, the whole situation sounds like instead of biting one big, but efficient bullet they want to try and squeeze blood out of a rock at a much higher price

I’ve never understood two things about ATL.

1. Why were A-D not designed the same width? I get that they served different purposes at the time but there seems to have been no forethought as to future growth.

1. I believe ABC are all roughly the same. D is narrower because it was designed as a Concourse for O&D Traffic for the likes of CO, NW, US, HP, TW, etc...

More information about the history of D:

When the midfield terminal at ATL was being designed, the original plan was for Delta to have all of A and half of B (which is what they got). Eastern would get the north half of B and the north half of C. Southern would be in the other half of C.

D would be mainly used by United (who had a large presence in ATL left over from Capital) and Piedmont, with Northwest, TWA, and Braniff also using D.

United and Southern subsequently decided to swap gates in the terminal, with United getting the south half of C and Southern moving to D.

After deregulation, United and TWA suspended service at ATL, and the gates intended for UA on C were given to Eastern.

If you're interested in the history of ATL between 1920 and 1980, buy "A Dream Takes Flight", by Betsy Braden. This book has a history of ATL, with several chapters devoted to the design process for the mid field terminal. At one point, ATL planned to put an above ground roadway down the middle of the concourses (where the underground subway is now), with above ground parking decks in the middle of each concourse. This would have meant passengers going from the north to the south halves of a concourse would have needed to go through a parking deck to do so. A Dream Takes Flight has a diagram of this plan, and several other plans that were discarded in favor of the present terminal complex design. This book is out of print, but used copies are readily available online.

n2dru wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

n2dru wrote:

Corruption in local government is nothing new in ANY major US city. Unfortunately Atlanta is no different. The old NWA hangar WILL come down once the asbestos issue is resolved...the land is too valuable to just sit idle and DL doesn't really need that hangar space. The land is prime for expansion of the cargo facilities on the southside of the airport.

Thinking of all the hangars at ATL, which one is the former NWA one?

South of the terminal complex...Just northeast of the fifth runway ,where it cross the interstate.

Thanks!

FF630 wrote:

I don't understand the need for moving sidewalks in Atlanta, it is healthy to walk after sitting on a plane for even an hour, we have become too lazy.

So then use the regular walkway in the middle. No one is stopping you.

WA707atMSP wrote:

More information about the history of D:

When the midfield terminal at ATL was being designed, the original plan was for Delta to have all of A and half of B (which is what they got). Eastern would get the north half of B and the north half of C. Southern would be in the other half of C.

D would be mainly used by United (who had a large presence in ATL left over from Capital) and Piedmont, with Northwest, TWA, and Braniff also using D.

United and Southern subsequently decided to swap gates in the terminal, with United getting the south half of C and Southern moving to D.

After deregulation, United and TWA suspended service at ATL, and the gates intended for UA on C were given to Eastern.

If you're interested in the history of ATL between 1920 and 1980, buy "A Dream Takes Flight", by Betsy Braden. This book has a history of ATL, with several chapters devoted to the design process for the mid field terminal. At one point, ATL planned to put an above ground roadway down the middle of the concourses (where the underground subway is now), with above ground parking decks in the middle of each concourse. This would have meant passengers going from the north to the south halves of a concourse would have needed to go through a parking deck to do so. A Dream Takes Flight has a diagram of this plan, and several other plans that were discarded in favor of the present terminal complex design. This book is out of print, but used copies are readily available online.

Awesome history lesson ... Thank you!

I remember United's rather large presence in ATL in the 70's... I had no idea they had planned on getting half of C

GSP psgr wrote:

questions wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

They've also boxed themselves in by letting a lot of expensive, very difficult to move infrastructure be built to the East of Terminal E. Their current plan for domestic gate expansion is confined to....a whole 6-8 gate dogleg off of the T-South at a cost of.....$400-500 million . Which is nuts. $800 million for 13 T gates. They also want to somehow cram another 2 gates each on BCD at yet another couple hundred million.

Honestly, the whole situation sounds like instead of biting one big, but efficient bullet they want to try and squeeze blood out of a rock at a much higher price

I’ve never understood two things about ATL.

1. Why were A-D not designed the same width? I get that they served different purposes at the time but there seems to have been no forethought as to future growth

2. The simplicity of ATL’s A-D parallel concourses design was great. Why was it not carried out in an early master plan in anticipation of future growth for concourses E and F... G and H?

If anyone yearns for the Christmas shopping mall crowds of yesteryear visit ATL any day of the week. I avoid ATL whenever possible.

1. I believe ABC are all roughly the same. D is narrower because it was designed as a Concourse for O&D Traffic for the likes of CO, NW, US, HP, TW, etc...

2. I don't think that back when Delta built all of their TechOps and associated infrastructure to the east of E they ever saw ATL getting this massive. Remember, when it was built in 1980, ATL was a split hub between DL and EA. EA collapsed and DL subsequently became the first airline to build a megahub at ATL.

As for how this impacts Delta in the short to medium term....Atlanta shifts more towards an O&D mix, I think. More connecting traffic starts flowing over Detroit (can absorb another 10-12m passengers annually with ease), their new Salt Lake hub terminal, and Minneapolis (where expansion is easier and cheaper).

So the Delta TOC pre dates the current mid field a-f by about 20 years. TOC 1 was build in the late 50's. At that point the mid field we currently have wasn't even a thought. All the gates were in the old North side terminal near the current DL General Offices complex. I doubt in our life time the TOC complex will move. It would be too expensive, there isn't enough land available on the airport and I really doubt the airport or Delta wants to deal with the possible soil contamination of the site. They do currently do sampling and everything is fine, but once the buildings are gone and the digging begins for what ever comes next...watch out.

That is part of the problem with the old Northwest/Republic hangar. As someone has remarked, asbestos. The back shops areas are currently off limits do to contamination I believe. That build will likely come down for expansion of south cargo/de-ice pads. As a hangar it is very limited. Only the t-tails and CRJ's fit. The roof is too low for 737 or A320. The lease was only for 10 years with 5-6 years left.

NYKiwi wrote:

Some people just like to complain. Having lived in ATL this was my home airport for a while and considering the amout of people that flow through here wvery day this place does very well. Sure its busy but what do you expect its a hub. Do people really want a terminal to themselves. The city is always investing in airport its bright always clean much better than 90% other airports in the US. Layout is pretty simple and easy to navigage and remember its not that far from doentown rither so its not a remote airport 45 mins out of city centre

Locals always view their home hub airport differently than visitors or connecters. Its because they don’t rent cars, don’t have to try to get across the airport in 45 minutes unless they are late from home, or worry about eating there.