Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
tu144d wrote:Been bored out of my mind with COVID and wanted to head out to DCA for some Ben's chilli and spotting but read that National Hall will be open only post security. Has these been done yet?
tu144d wrote:Been bored out of my mind with COVID and wanted to head out to DCA for some Ben's chilli and spotting but read that National Hall will be open only post security. Has these been done yet?
washingtonflyer wrote:Is the assumption that all remote hardstand boarding will be gone as far as American is concerned? Given that the hard stands were the exclusive domain of the CR2s, E145s, and (sometimes CR7s), is it envisioned that the larger E-jets will use the new concourse as well?
DCA350 wrote:Just flew out of IAD on early Wednesday morning, 1:30am.. Noticed a BA A350K overnighting at the gate. Is this normal? I don't recall the European carriers overnighting at IAD in the past.
DCA350 wrote:Just flew out of IAD on early Wednesday morning, 1:30am.. Noticed a BA A350K overnighting at the gate. Is this normal? I don't recall the European carriers overnighting at IAD in the past.
USAirALB wrote:I kinda wish MWAA would rename/renumber the gates to align with their perspective terminals. The whole Terminal B/C complex has always been somewhat confusing, especially how Gates 23-34 are both in Terminal B and C. Gates 1-9 would become A1-A9, Gates 10-22 would become B1-B12, Gates 23-34 become C1-C12, Gates 35-45 become D1-D12, and the new concourse gates become E1-E14. The whole complex could simply become "Terminal 2" while all A gates could become "Terminal 1".
SFO recently did this last year with their numeric gates and it makes so much more sense.
airlineworker wrote:
Are there available slots at DCA now due to the Covid cut back on flights?
DCA350 wrote:Just flew out of IAD on early Wednesday morning, 1:30am.. Noticed a BA A350K overnighting at the gate. Is this normal? I don't recall the European carriers overnighting at IAD in the past.
UALFAson wrote:USAirALB wrote:I kinda wish MWAA would rename/renumber the gates to align with their perspective terminals. The whole Terminal B/C complex has always been somewhat confusing, especially how Gates 23-34 are both in Terminal B and C. Gates 1-9 would become A1-A9, Gates 10-22 would become B1-B12, Gates 23-34 become C1-C12, Gates 35-45 become D1-D12, and the new concourse gates become E1-E14. The whole complex could simply become "Terminal 2" while all A gates could become "Terminal 1".
SFO recently did this last year with their numeric gates and it makes so much more sense.
I would actually suggest the opposite: get rid of the meaningless A/B/C designations and just keep the gates in numerical order like they are now. I can't count the number of times at various airports that I have had to assist people who get their seat assignment and gate confused because they both have letters and numbers. Having gates be numbers only in smaller airports significantly reduces the confusion.
I flew through SFO last year and found the gate renumbering system extremely confusing. In UA's terminals, you still wind up with even and odd-numbered gates next to each other, so I don't see how it's that much more helpful. Though part of the issue may be I have flown through there for so long that I practically had all T2 and T3 gate locations memorized by their old number.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
USAirALB wrote:Speaking of the new concourse, it's too bad there isn't additional lounge space for a Centurion Lounge. DCA is such a glaring hole in their lounge network.DCA350 wrote:Just flew out of IAD on early Wednesday morning, 1:30am.. Noticed a BA A350K overnighting at the gate. Is this normal? I don't recall the European carriers overnighting at IAD in the past.
The only time I have ever known BA to overnight at IAD was when they had a daytime flight (BA224) that departed Dulles at 830am. Truly wish that flight still exists...such a civilized way to reach LHR. The A35K must have gone tech?
Speaking of BA, what was their pre-COVID schedule? I know in late 2018 they announced the resumption of a third daily flight that operated 3-4x weekly that operated much later in the evening (ironically I think the third frequency was originally the daytime flight before it was changed to an evening departure before being axed altogether) and ran with a 789. Was that dropped (again) pre-COVID?
USAirALB wrote:Will the new pier have an official name? Wikipedia refers to it as Terminal D but MWAA just refers to it as "New Concourse".
I kinda wish MWAA would rename/renumber the gates to align with their perspective terminals. The whole Terminal B/C complex has always been somewhat confusing, especially how Gates 23-34 are both in Terminal B and C. Gates 1-9 would become A1-A9, Gates 10-22 would become B1-B12, Gates 23-34 become C1-C12, Gates 35-45 become D1-D12, and the new concourse gates become E1-E14. The whole complex could simply become "Terminal 2" while all A gates could become "Terminal 1".
SFO recently did this last year with their numeric gates and it makes so much more sense.
blockski wrote:USAirALB wrote:Will the new pier have an official name? Wikipedia refers to it as Terminal D but MWAA just refers to it as "New Concourse".
I kinda wish MWAA would rename/renumber the gates to align with their perspective terminals. The whole Terminal B/C complex has always been somewhat confusing, especially how Gates 23-34 are both in Terminal B and C. Gates 1-9 would become A1-A9, Gates 10-22 would become B1-B12, Gates 23-34 become C1-C12, Gates 35-45 become D1-D12, and the new concourse gates become E1-E14. The whole complex could simply become "Terminal 2" while all A gates could become "Terminal 1".
SFO recently did this last year with their numeric gates and it makes so much more sense.
MWAA has hinted at this, but they haven't released anything about their plans. I would imagine we might see changes soon.
USAirALB wrote:blockski wrote:USAirALB wrote:Will the new pier have an official name? Wikipedia refers to it as Terminal D but MWAA just refers to it as "New Concourse".
I kinda wish MWAA would rename/renumber the gates to align with their perspective terminals. The whole Terminal B/C complex has always been somewhat confusing, especially how Gates 23-34 are both in Terminal B and C. Gates 1-9 would become A1-A9, Gates 10-22 would become B1-B12, Gates 23-34 become C1-C12, Gates 35-45 become D1-D12, and the new concourse gates become E1-E14. The whole complex could simply become "Terminal 2" while all A gates could become "Terminal 1".
SFO recently did this last year with their numeric gates and it makes so much more sense.
MWAA has hinted at this, but they haven't released anything about their plans. I would imagine we might see changes soon.
At a curiosity, where have you seen them hint at this?
Frankly if they were to do it now would be the time to do so as they are likely changing a whole bunch of terminal signage anyways with opening of the new concourse, as well as the Secure National Hall/Security Checkpoint project.
blockski wrote:If anything, the consolidation into two giant checkpoints will kinda make the Terminal B/C distinction more clear. And once you're behind security, you'd have access to all B/C gates. That's the biggest issue with the current set-up. "Terminal C" doesn't actually tell you which checkpoint you need to use.
SyracuseAvGeek wrote:I never really thought about doing this until now, but it’s technically possible to connect in a really small city between two hubs.
Found someone who made a trip report video when he/she went from IAD to ORD, but instead of going nonstop they connected in a place called “Ogdensburg”.
https://youtu.be/M7vrOJmRQvA
Interesting video, I’ll have to try doing that sometime. Does United offer flight itineraries like this on the website? Or would I have to call them and ask for it?
IADFCO wrote:@USAirALB – About DCA Terminal A: interesting post, thank you, I was not aware of it. I hope they keep it in some form but with the original shape. I think it qualifies as a historical landmark, I don't know whether it actually is. I used it quite a few times even before B/C were built, with TWA on my way to JFK and then FCO. Sometimes, while waiting for friends to arrive at B or C, I walk all the way there for old times' sake.
SyracuseAvGeek wrote:I never really thought about doing this until now, but it’s technically possible to connect in a really small city between two hubs.
Found someone who made a trip report video when he/she went from IAD to ORD, but instead of going nonstop they connected in a place called “Ogdensburg”.
https://youtu.be/M7vrOJmRQvA
Interesting video, I’ll have to try doing that sometime. Does United offer flight itineraries like this on the website? Or would I have to call them and ask for it?
blockski wrote:This is the historic waiting room that's currently outside of security. What we think of as Terminal A (the Banjo and the associated bag claims) is not historic but could be eligible for listing. I'm not exactly sure where the boundary is between the historic portion of the building and the newer portions.
USAirALB wrote:blockski wrote:If anything, the consolidation into two giant checkpoints will kinda make the Terminal B/C distinction more clear. And once you're behind security, you'd have access to all B/C gates. That's the biggest issue with the current set-up. "Terminal C" doesn't actually tell you which checkpoint you need to use.
This. There have been a couple of times (all on AA) where just "Terminal C" was on my mobile boarding pass (unsure if the gate wasn't actually assigned or there was an app issue), and it was quite confusing which checkpoint to use. If anything, Terminal C should just go away.
Also, I wonder how far along MWAA is to replacing Terminal A. Apparently MWAA has floated the idea around internally, and they have published two separate renderings for Terminal A; the first of which involves a whole new terminal building to replace the "banjo", the second involves a new concourse essentially parallel to the banjo.
New terminal building rendering: https://twitter.com/alex_block/status/7 ... 2680662016
New concourse: https://twitter.com/alex_block/status/8 ... 9309417472
I have never flown out of Terminal A, and I get that it's historic (I can't remember what has preservation status, the banjo or or the 1941 Landside Terminal structure) but it looks crowded and gives me LaGuardia-vibes. Pity those that fly out of that terminal and never see how beautiful B/C is.
capitalflyer wrote:USAirALB wrote:blockski wrote:If anything, the consolidation into two giant checkpoints will kinda make the Terminal B/C distinction more clear. And once you're behind security, you'd have access to all B/C gates. That's the biggest issue with the current set-up. "Terminal C" doesn't actually tell you which checkpoint you need to use.
This. There have been a couple of times (all on AA) where just "Terminal C" was on my mobile boarding pass (unsure if the gate wasn't actually assigned or there was an app issue), and it was quite confusing which checkpoint to use. If anything, Terminal C should just go away.
Also, I wonder how far along MWAA is to replacing Terminal A. Apparently MWAA has floated the idea around internally, and they have published two separate renderings for Terminal A; the first of which involves a whole new terminal building to replace the "banjo", the second involves a new concourse essentially parallel to the banjo.
New terminal building rendering: https://twitter.com/alex_block/status/7 ... 2680662016
New concourse: https://twitter.com/alex_block/status/8 ... 9309417472
I have never flown out of Terminal A, and I get that it's historic (I can't remember what has preservation status, the banjo or or the 1941 Landside Terminal structure) but it looks crowded and gives me LaGuardia-vibes. Pity those that fly out of that terminal and never see how beautiful B/C is.
This looks great, but I think it was a "35x" alternative. They will not be able to add any additional gates. 35x was allowed because it was viewed as like 12 gates (or whatever the number actually was). Actually, IMO, the banjo inside looks pretty cool. Evokes a bit of 1960s JFK with its open interior and common hold room. They refurbished it nicely a couple years ago with the bar/restaurant in the middle.
USAirALB wrote:capitalflyer wrote:USAirALB wrote:This. There have been a couple of times (all on AA) where just "Terminal C" was on my mobile boarding pass (unsure if the gate wasn't actually assigned or there was an app issue), and it was quite confusing which checkpoint to use. If anything, Terminal C should just go away.
Also, I wonder how far along MWAA is to replacing Terminal A. Apparently MWAA has floated the idea around internally, and they have published two separate renderings for Terminal A; the first of which involves a whole new terminal building to replace the "banjo", the second involves a new concourse essentially parallel to the banjo.
New terminal building rendering: https://twitter.com/alex_block/status/7 ... 2680662016
New concourse: https://twitter.com/alex_block/status/8 ... 9309417472
I have never flown out of Terminal A, and I get that it's historic (I can't remember what has preservation status, the banjo or or the 1941 Landside Terminal structure) but it looks crowded and gives me LaGuardia-vibes. Pity those that fly out of that terminal and never see how beautiful B/C is.
This looks great, but I think it was a "35x" alternative. They will not be able to add any additional gates. 35x was allowed because it was viewed as like 12 gates (or whatever the number actually was). Actually, IMO, the banjo inside looks pretty cool. Evokes a bit of 1960s JFK with its open interior and common hold room. They refurbished it nicely a couple years ago with the bar/restaurant in the middle.
I don't think those renderings are a "35x" alternative, as one clearly states "South Concourse" and I found a couple of documents that detail the renderings of the new Terminal A/South Concourse (some supplement the Banjo, some replace it outright, it looks like the ones that replace it are the local preferred alternative), all of which show the new Terminal A/South Concourse co-existing with the new north concourse currently being built.
Edit: I have seen renderings that call for a Southern Concourse to be built instead of what's being built now, but I have seen others that replace the Banjo outright in addition to constructing the North Concourse.
blockski wrote:Elsewhere in DCA news: An AMEX Centurion Lounge is coming:
https://twitter.com/robpegoraro/status/ ... 3526824963
This would seem to take advantage of space that will now be adjacent to the secure corridors via National Hall, rather than stuck on the landside portion.
washingtonflyer wrote:The only thing that I wonder about with respect to DCA is the fact that the Terminal A area used to have two piers - the banjo and a traditional pier to the east of the banjo which had (what appears to be) room for at least 7 gates via jetbridges.
If you go onto Google maps you can see the outline of that removed pier.
So: #1 why was that pier removed and #2 could that space be rebuilt as a new pier to add gates to the Terminal A area?
washingtonflyer wrote:How did the new north pier then get approved? Is the assumption that hard stand was equal to gates?
blockski wrote:washingtonflyer wrote:The only thing that I wonder about with respect to DCA is the fact that the Terminal A area used to have two piers - the banjo and a traditional pier to the east of the banjo which had (what appears to be) room for at least 7 gates via jetbridges.
If you go onto Google maps you can see the outline of that removed pier.
So: #1 why was that pier removed and #2 could that space be rebuilt as a new pier to add gates to the Terminal A area?
That pier was removed when the new Terminal B/C opened. The scope for B/C was to be big enough to replace it. That's also a reason there's less pressure to redevelop the A banjo today - there's just less stuff crammed into that old portion of the terminal.
Going forward, I'm sure that's exactly the location where a new Terminal A would go - they'd keep the Banjo operating during construction, etc. I don't think they'd go for a net expansion in gates absent a change in the law. DCA has a legal cap on the number of gates. MWAA isn't eager to expand DCA beyond that, nor does it really make sense given the slot controls that will always be in place given the airfield constraints. Where things get a little trickier is ensuring airline access and facilities if one obtains slots, and that's where DCA is packed to the gills.
washingtonflyer wrote:The only thing that I wonder about with respect to DCA is the fact that the Terminal A area used to have two piers - the banjo and a traditional pier to the east of the banjo which had (what appears to be) room for at least 7 gates via jetbridges.
If you go onto Google maps you can see the outline of that removed pier.
So: #1 why was that pier removed and #2 could that space be rebuilt as a new pier to add gates to the Terminal A area?