joeblow10 wrote:DEN also has the advantage of being very well geographically situated for domestic connections from East-West...
MIflyer12 wrote:joeblow10 wrote:DEN also has the advantage of being very well geographically situated for domestic connections from East-West...
It's not superior to ORD in that regard. The area surrounding DEN (whether you want to go with 60/90/120 minute flight times) is less dense than ORD. The fairly even split of CHI traffic between UA/AA/WN does limit UA's hubbing opportunities, however, in spite of the much larger CSA.
jetmatt777 wrote:
Really need another east and west runway for windy days as well as more deicing pads to help out in the winter time. When the airport has gusty west winds the line for takeoff can be 30-40 planes deep during the heavy banks. This will only get worse with more growth planned.
SonomaFlyer wrote:Fortunately, DEN is huge in terms of the amount of land available. They will increase the capacity of the airport in stages and add infrastructure as they go. DEN management has proven fairly far sighted in that regard.
JBo wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:joeblow10 wrote:DEN also has the advantage of being very well geographically situated for domestic connections from East-West...
It's not superior to ORD in that regard. The area surrounding DEN (whether you want to go with 60/90/120 minute flight times) is less dense than ORD. The fairly even split of CHI traffic between UA/AA/WN does limit UA's hubbing opportunities, however, in spite of the much larger CSA.
DEN is far more centrally located than ORD for East-West connections.
jbmitt wrote:DEN is currently infrastructure limited, but the ongoing expansions should fix that in the short term. I think they will need to start planning for a terminal D.
Denver isn’t as large of a market as the other cities you mentioned but the smaller market does seem to have a greater propensity to travel. The Rocky Mountain tourism and growing conventions certainly help as well.
Continued growth by Frontier and Southwest could limit opportunities for United, but they’ve found ways to be successful.
My wife and I are KBIL based and fly almost exclusively on UA through Denver. Yes we have F9 3x/weekly but it isn’t reliable compared to 4-5x daily UA service, better connection opportunities, and premier upgrades. The trade off for us, but benefit for United, are very high ticket prices.
Nicknuzzii wrote:Will it every be comparable to CLT or DFW?
intotheair wrote:DEN ultimately has space for up to 12 runways and seven concourses. After the current 39 gate expansion is finished in 2021, there will be space to add a few more gates onto the west end of the C Concourse. The airport will start thinking about building a new concourse in about 10 years' time. The preferred plan is to build them east and west of the terminal, though that's still a long term decision.Nicknuzzii wrote:Will it every be comparable to CLT or DFW?
DFW processed 69 million passengers last year. DEN was at 64 million. I'd say that's comparable. CLT had 46 million. The difference is that UA doesn't dominate DEN the way AA does at DFW and CLT. Still though, UA has an aggressive plan, and it's decisively the biggest carrier overall at DEN with 44.6% market share as of August.
BNAMealer wrote:intotheair wrote:DEN ultimately has space for up to 12 runways and seven concourses. After the current 39 gate expansion is finished in 2021, there will be space to add a few more gates onto the west end of the C Concourse. The airport will start thinking about building a new concourse in about 10 years' time. The preferred plan is to build them east and west of the terminal, though that's still a long term decision.Nicknuzzii wrote:Will it every be comparable to CLT or DFW?
DFW processed 69 million passengers last year. DEN was at 64 million. I'd say that's comparable. CLT had 46 million. The difference is that UA doesn't dominate DEN the way AA does at DFW and CLT. Still though, UA has an aggressive plan, and it's decisively the biggest carrier overall at DEN with 44.6% market share as of August.
If they did an east/west concourse, would everyone except UA/WN go there?
Nicknuzzii wrote:BNAMealer wrote:intotheair wrote:DEN ultimately has space for up to 12 runways and seven concourses. After the current 39 gate expansion is finished in 2021, there will be space to add a few more gates onto the west end of the C Concourse. The airport will start thinking about building a new concourse in about 10 years' time. The preferred plan is to build them east and west of the terminal, though that's still a long term decision.
DFW processed 69 million passengers last year. DEN was at 64 million. I'd say that's comparable. CLT had 46 million. The difference is that UA doesn't dominate DEN the way AA does at DFW and CLT. Still though, UA has an aggressive plan, and it's decisively the biggest carrier overall at DEN with 44.6% market share as of August.
If they did an east/west concourse, would everyone except UA/WN go there?
If everyone except UA and WN went there would it really benefit UA that much?
Nicknuzzii wrote:BNAMealer wrote:intotheair wrote:DEN ultimately has space for up to 12 runways and seven concourses. After the current 39 gate expansion is finished in 2021, there will be space to add a few more gates onto the west end of the C Concourse. The airport will start thinking about building a new concourse in about 10 years' time. The preferred plan is to build them east and west of the terminal, though that's still a long term decision.
DFW processed 69 million passengers last year. DEN was at 64 million. I'd say that's comparable. CLT had 46 million. The difference is that UA doesn't dominate DEN the way AA does at DFW and CLT. Still though, UA has an aggressive plan, and it's decisively the biggest carrier overall at DEN with 44.6% market share as of August.
If they did an east/west concourse, would everyone except UA/WN go there?
If everyone except UA and WN went there would it really benefit UA that much?
CriticalPoint wrote:They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.
What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?
Frontier14 wrote:I suspect that concourse D will eventually be built, if domestic and international air traffic continue to grow as it has in the DEN area. United is planning to grow by 10% (50+ new daily flights) for S20, as one poster has already said. Many of these are RJs to places like Riverton and Sheridan, Wyoming. UAs been aggressively bidding for EAS markets out of DEN and surprisingly being awarded some at higher costs than the incumbent operators. But hey, it is jet service and not props so they are getting the routes.
I believe pax walk tunnels between concourses were part of the original design, much like Hartsfield, but were eliminated when construction costs began to skyrocket. If concourse D is finalized, it really should have a pax tunnel from C. The trains now can be very crowded at peak arrival and departure times. I have been left waiting at the door several times because the train car was packed tight.
I have heard projections that DEN will likely reach 75 million passengers by 2023 if the pattern of growth continues as it has.
Frontier 14
smokeybandit wrote:Most normal passengers don't care about views and lounges. They want to spend as little time actually in the airport as possible
CriticalPoint wrote:They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.
What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?
BNAMealer wrote:Nicknuzzii wrote:BNAMealer wrote:
If they did an east/west concourse, would everyone except UA/WN go there?
If everyone except UA and WN went there would it really benefit UA that much?
Yes, because they'd get all of A (except international flights) and B to themselves and WN would get all of C. Remember that A could still be expanded to the east a bit after the current work. Any UA operations in the proposed E/W concourses would be an operational nightmare for connections.
Unless I am reading something wrong, because the alternative plan presented would essentially be a second terminal, and the concourses would not be connected to the existing ones, I'd personally stick with the original plan and build D to house all of the non-UA/WN carriers.
JBo wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:joeblow10 wrote:DEN also has the advantage of being very well geographically situated for domestic connections from East-West...
It's not superior to ORD in that regard. The area surrounding DEN (whether you want to go with 60/90/120 minute flight times) is less dense than ORD. The fairly even split of CHI traffic between UA/AA/WN does limit UA's hubbing opportunities, however, in spite of the much larger CSA.
DEN is far more centrally located than ORD for East-West connections.
DENfan wrote:I’ve always thought UA was taking DEN for granted for international traffic up until a few years ago. Norwegian, Edelweiss, others are proving that DEN O&D - passengers that prefer and will pay for non-stop - are there and growing. UA is slowly getting there and not just deferring to partners - LHR year-round, NRT, FRA is a solid base. My UA growth wish list - CDG, MAD (before Level or now EuroWings gets on it), ICN or another Asian n/s. They need to add a Polaris lounge to one of their Clubs, add showers, and move other *A partner departures to B concourse to allow better club access.
KFTG wrote:Any expansion will require Peńa Blvd. to be widened.
DEN1895 wrote:[
The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.
The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.
KFTG wrote:Any expansion will require Peńa Blvd. to be widened.
ytib wrote:KFTG wrote:Any expansion will require Peńa Blvd. to be widened.
This will start in the next year however initially it will be the last couple of miles closer to the terminal (Jackson Gap inbound). Eventually the part all the way to I-70 will get widened, however that is 10 years out as it isn't funded as of yet.
The RFP was issued over the summer for $93 Million.
http://business.flydenver.com/bizops/rfp.asp
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/06/19/d ... n-project/
jetmatt777 wrote:ytib wrote:KFTG wrote:Any expansion will require Peńa Blvd. to be widened.
This will start in the next year however initially it will be the last couple of miles closer to the terminal (Jackson Gap inbound). Eventually the part all the way to I-70 will get widened, however that is 10 years out as it isn't funded as of yet.
The RFP was issued over the summer for $93 Million.
http://business.flydenver.com/bizops/rfp.asp
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/06/19/d ... n-project/
So ridiculous that they are expanding the part that doesn't need to be expanded first. The worst part is from I-70 to E-470. Very typical of DIA's inept management team.
DEN1895 wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.
What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?
A walking tunnel would be difficult to implement as it would have to be dug under the current baggage and train tunnels, but it has been examined in the past.
The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.
The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.
BNAMealer wrote:DEN1895 wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.
What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?
A walking tunnel would be difficult to implement as it would have to be dug under the current baggage and train tunnels, but it has been examined in the past.
The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.
The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.
A pedestrian tunnel may be difficult to implement, but it will simply have to be done. There is only so much that can be done with the trains and if UA goes to multiple concourses, a malfunction on an increasingly used train will be a nightmare.
DEN1895 wrote:BNAMealer wrote:DEN1895 wrote:
A walking tunnel would be difficult to implement as it would have to be dug under the current baggage and train tunnels, but it has been examined in the past.
The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.
The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.
A pedestrian tunnel may be difficult to implement, but it will simply have to be done. There is only so much that can be done with the trains and if UA goes to multiple concourses, a malfunction on an increasingly used train will be a nightmare.
It really just comes down to how much money should be spent on a rare issue, in the nearly 25 years the trains have only completely failed 3 times. Currently the system has 99.9% reliability, while there are sometimes delays a few minutes, I have heard creating new tunnels may cost hundreds of millions up to billion+ to fix. Under the current tunnels are the main utilities for all three concourses and baggage systems that drive up the cost of the project. In the future there is a possibility for adding additional trains that travel through the outer cores of the concourse, with the expansions for the concourses being built with train stations in mind. I agree there should be some sort of backup, but I don't know if it should be the main focus of the airport when there are many other things at the airport that need attention.
BNAMealer wrote:DEN1895 wrote:CriticalPoint wrote:They have MUST fix the train though.....that thing is a disaster and is already out grown.
What can they do in that regard? Would a walking tunnel be enough?
A walking tunnel would be difficult to implement as it would have to be dug under the current baggage and train tunnels, but it has been examined in the past.
The current solution to the train is to add more trains to the system to make them come more frequently, right now the system runs 6 trains arriving every 2 minutes. Starting at the end of 2020 the airport will start receiving additional train cars to increase the system to 8 trains arriving every 90ish seconds.
The next expansion capability is to expand the trains to 5 or 6 car trains, the terminal and all concourses were built with this in mind and would require little modification besides adding additional station doors.
A pedestrian tunnel may be difficult to implement, but it will simply have to be done. There is only so much that can be done with the trains and if UA goes to multiple concourses, a malfunction on an increasingly used train will be a nightmare.
BNAMealer wrote:DEN1895 wrote:BNAMealer wrote:
I don’t care if it costs $1 billion+, with the insane growth DEN is experiencing, pedestrian tunnels are needed fast. I’d actually argue this may be the most critical issue right now.
COSPN wrote:What happened to the walking tunnel to A that was demanded by the “old” Continental Airlines (they did not trust the train concept “
ytib wrote:Adding more trains more frequently sounds good on paper however in reality this will not be a solution. When passengers get on the train they tend to go quite slow which results in people holding/forcing the doors open longer than they should be in order to keep things on time. If the trains are delayed in a more tightly timed system it will delay all other trains as well since they need to be coordinated.
MSPNWA wrote:In the near term another crosswind runway and further extensions of the concourses would be nice. I'd say those are the two highest operational priorities to handle the growth.
More trains will still help that problem though as it will reduce the number of passengers waiting/riding an individual train and holding up the on/off process. It should be a more timely system to offset the shorter room for error.