Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
fanoftristars wrote:So how does that split out work? Seems like a lot of expense and effort for 4-5 gates in each terminal…
william wrote:AA stated the DFW was inefficient because they have four check in areas in four terrminals. So the ability to concentrate more flights on the east side in two terminals will help make DFW more efficient for AA.
glbltrvlr wrote:fanoftristars wrote:So how does that split out work? Seems like a lot of expense and effort for 4-5 gates in each terminal…
And just puts more people in an already overcrowded concourse.
AA737-823 wrote:While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals,
onwFan wrote:AA737-823 wrote:While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals,
I was thinking about the same. Couldn’t they have added 9 gates by adding gates to the A-C and C-E connection corridors, just like they did recently on the D-F corridor? It seems the B-D corridor also has gates...
AA737-823 wrote:glbltrvlr wrote:fanoftristars wrote:So how does that split out work? Seems like a lot of expense and effort for 4-5 gates in each terminal…
And just puts more people in an already overcrowded concourse.
That problem is actually a big focus of this project; the addition of a handful (literally) of gates is only one goal. With the increased square footage, passenger circulation improvements are planned, as well as additional retail (revenue$$$) space for restaurants, etc.
While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals, in reality, the SkyLink destroyed any aesthetic appeal DFW ever had, and that was sixteen years ago.
onwFan wrote:I was thinking about the same. Couldn’t they have added 9 gates by adding gates to the A-C and C-E connection corridors, just like they did recently on the D-F corridor? It seems the B-D corridor also has gates...
TXRoadMan wrote:And speaking of aesthetics, I walked from A to C the other day, and knowing what was coming, stopped in the old low-C departure lounge space for a moment, trying to imagine one last time what it must have been like 40 years ago. Progress is good, but there is a bit of history to be lost there.
AA737-823 wrote:You know, I never knew how it was originally configured, until just a couple years ago when I saw an ancient photo of DFW Terminal C and thought, "Um, no, that couldn't possibly be DFW."
But it was.
So I've walked around C a couple times since, and really just can't envision it.
Where was the lounge space? Since C was only 2/3 of a terminal for a long time, I figure there were two of the big lounges?
AA737-823 wrote:glbltrvlr wrote:fanoftristars wrote:So how does that split out work? Seems like a lot of expense and effort for 4-5 gates in each terminal…
And just puts more people in an already overcrowded concourse.
While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals, in reality, the SkyLink destroyed any aesthetic appeal DFW ever had, and that was sixteen years ago.
gdg9 wrote:AA737-823 wrote:glbltrvlr wrote:And just puts more people in an already overcrowded concourse.
While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals, in reality, the SkyLink destroyed any aesthetic appeal DFW ever had, and that was sixteen years ago.
One good thing, for me, about the Skyline, other than it being quicker than the old Train/Tram, is the great views of the airport. Its a spotters dream as well, one loop and you can easily net 50-75 tail numbers.
AA737-823 wrote:glbltrvlr wrote:fanoftristars wrote:So how does that split out work? Seems like a lot of expense and effort for 4-5 gates in each terminal…
And just puts more people in an already overcrowded concourse.
That problem is actually a big focus of this project; the addition of a handful (literally) of gates is only one goal. With the increased square footage, passenger circulation improvements are planned, as well as additional retail (revenue$$$) space for restaurants, etc.
While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals, in reality, the SkyLink destroyed any aesthetic appeal DFW ever had, and that was sixteen years ago.
william wrote:AA737-823 wrote:glbltrvlr wrote:And just puts more people in an already overcrowded concourse.
That problem is actually a big focus of this project; the addition of a handful (literally) of gates is only one goal. With the increased square footage, passenger circulation improvements are planned, as well as additional retail (revenue$$$) space for restaurants, etc.
While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals, in reality, the SkyLink destroyed any aesthetic appeal DFW ever had, and that was sixteen years ago.
Aesthetics went out the window with the decision to build Terminal D with a white exterior. Contrasting it with the soothing earth tone brown the airport was built with.
gdg9 wrote:william wrote:AA737-823 wrote:
That problem is actually a big focus of this project; the addition of a handful (literally) of gates is only one goal. With the increased square footage, passenger circulation improvements are planned, as well as additional retail (revenue$$$) space for restaurants, etc.
While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals, in reality, the SkyLink destroyed any aesthetic appeal DFW ever had, and that was sixteen years ago.
Aesthetics went out the window with the decision to build Terminal D with a white exterior. Contrasting it with the soothing earth tone brown the airport was built with.
You mean the concrete?
gdg9 wrote:william wrote:AA737-823 wrote:
That problem is actually a big focus of this project; the addition of a handful (literally) of gates is only one goal. With the increased square footage, passenger circulation improvements are planned, as well as additional retail (revenue$$$) space for restaurants, etc.
While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals, in reality, the SkyLink destroyed any aesthetic appeal DFW ever had, and that was sixteen years ago.
Aesthetics went out the window with the decision to build Terminal D with a white exterior. Contrasting it with the soothing earth tone brown the airport was built with.
You mean the concrete?
FriscoHeavy wrote:gdg9 wrote:william wrote:
Aesthetics went out the window with the decision to build Terminal D with a white exterior. Contrasting it with the soothing earth tone brown the airport was built with.
You mean the concrete?
Hahahaha, right! DFW is my home airport and I absolutely love it, but to say that Terminals A, B, C & E are 'Aesthetically Pleasant Earth Toned Terminals' leaves me scratching my head. From the outside, they are hideous brown concrete. Earth tones my butt. Terminal D is MUCH more pleasing to the eye.
Now, I'm only talking about the outside. Inside, all but Terminal C have been refurbed and do look very clean and airy.
AA737-823 wrote:glbltrvlr wrote:fanoftristars wrote:So how does that split out work? Seems like a lot of expense and effort for 4-5 gates in each terminal…
And just puts more people in an already overcrowded concourse.
That problem is actually a big focus of this project; the addition of a handful (literally) of gates is only one goal. With the increased square footage, passenger circulation improvements are planned, as well as additional retail (revenue$$$) space for restaurants, etc.
While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals, in reality, the SkyLink destroyed any aesthetic appeal DFW ever had, and that was sixteen years ago.
744lover wrote:AA737-823 wrote:glbltrvlr wrote:And just puts more people in an already overcrowded concourse.
That problem is actually a big focus of this project; the addition of a handful (literally) of gates is only one goal. With the increased square footage, passenger circulation improvements are planned, as well as additional retail (revenue$$$) space for restaurants, etc.
While I do think this project will destroy what is left of the simple aesthetic of DFW's original terminals, in reality, the SkyLink destroyed any aesthetic appeal DFW ever had, and that was sixteen years ago.
Honestly SkyLink is the reason for me that I choose to fly in/out of DFW as much as possible. Leaving my car at terminal A and arriving later at terminal D all that I need is a short 5-minute hop on SkyLink and I'm there (provided I didn't checked any luggage). Connecting from a flight on terminal A to terminal E? Easy. Connection in other airports such as BOS, JFK, MIA (just to name a few) is a hassle. You need to leave air-side, take a bus to another terminal (you don't have to in MIA), go though security again and easily need 30+ minutes for all this...
BR,
744lover
ubeema wrote:Just arrived from ORD at terminal D. Noticed one QR 777 at remote stand and one 350 at the terminal. Is that normal ops?
FriscoHeavy wrote:ubeema wrote:Just arrived from ORD at terminal D. Noticed one QR 777 at remote stand and one 350 at the terminal. Is that normal ops?
It should be as they are currently flying 10 trips per week, I believe.
FriscoHeavy wrote:gdg9 wrote:william wrote:
Hahahaha, right! DFW is my home airport and I absolutely love it, but to say that Terminals A, B, C & E are 'Aesthetically Pleasant Earth Toned Terminals' leaves me scratching my head. From the outside, they are hideous brown concrete. Earth tones my butt. Terminal D is MUCH more pleasing to the eye.
93Sierra wrote:Is Spirit going to gain another gate?
RJNUT wrote:Denver Air Connection will begin flights to DFW from Clovis, NM once a day using the Dorner 328 jet.
zululima wrote:RJNUT wrote:Denver Air Connection will begin flights to DFW from Clovis, NM once a day using the Dorner 328 jet.
Sweet! I need both 328 types. Is this the first Dornier service we've had since Ozark II terminated?
jvlmd81 wrote:Any one know if we will ever have non stop service to PVD from DFW?
jvlmd81 wrote:Any one know if we will ever have non stop service to PVD from DFW?
IrishTexan wrote:Looks like the imminent double daily BA 78X/788 on DFW-LHR is a precursor to BA A380 service starting on or after Dec.7 depending on "facilities being in place". Many sources online quoting this story.
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/ne ... 31883.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/b ... ar-AAP88W8
gdg9 wrote:Dallas/Fort Worth saw 5,382,266 passengers in September, bringing the airport to a total of 44,663,703 passengers in the first nine months of the year. American Airlines and American Eagle branded flights saw 4,75,480 passengers, or just under 87 of every 100 passengers. Foreign carriers flew 77,640 passengers, of 1.4% of the total.
Ishrion wrote:
Brandon757 wrote:gdg9 wrote:Dallas/Fort Worth saw 5,382,266 passengers in September, bringing the airport to a total of 44,663,703 passengers in the first nine months of the year. American Airlines and American Eagle branded flights saw 4,75,480 passengers, or just under 87 of every 100 passengers. Foreign carriers flew 77,640 passengers, of 1.4% of the total.
Are you ever going to restart your international passenger count by airlines that you did before Covid? I always enjoyed reading those.