IADCA wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

A kinda out in the wild thought - today there is a neat picture taken from the cockpit of a 737 landing at SDU Rio's city airport by Jan Mogren on the first page of this website. (Couldn't figure out how to link picture but its a close in parallel runway on a very small piece of real estate)

Wouldn't a similar set up at DCA make it safer and more efficient? (Sorry if this has been discussed before). SFO has about the same but way more land than these 2 airports.

To post a photo use the photoid tags around the photographs database ID

Code: Select all

[photoid]379202[/photoid]

You can also use the twoid and threeid tags to post two or three photographs together:

Code: Select all

[twoid]2658343,1276491[/twoid]
[threeid]6041615,4549391,2553635[/threeid]

I’ll defer to someone more familiar with DCA to asvuse how realistic such a set-up would be, but my immediate thought is a combination of lack of land space and airspace procedures around DC would mean a parallel runway wouldn’t be practical.

V/F

What's the goal? Simultaneous operations with one used for T/O and one for landing? If so, the chief obstacle there would be that you'd need a ton of landfill to get a usable outer runway for landing. Even the 750 foot separation (SFO) would require a lot of fill for taxiways, overruns, etc., and even more if you wanted one as long as 1/19.

They'd be so close together that I don't see why the airspace procedures would be different, but you'd just be creating a traffic jam on the ground. It would be heaven for ground controllers who like to say "hold short."

Also, the runway centerlines at SDU are 250 feet apart, not even the 750 feet at SFO.

I agree the NIMBY folks would kill this. But last time I was at DCA (pre-covid) they were extensively using 2 runways - the crosswind runway for RJ's and corporates.

Correct there would be no simultaneous ops. But CLE had the old 23R/5L (6400x200) this close and there were some efficiencies in not having to wait for the landing aircraft to clear the runway before T/O clearance on the shorter runway. Also would help out if a plane is disabled on landing runway or it needs to be closed for plowing or treatment.

It would be interesting to get a commercial pilots view point on this.

In addition to everything that atcsundevil mentioned in his post (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456155&start=50#p22695325), I'll dive into the Airport Arrival Rate (AAR) for DCA, and a notorious East Coast airport: EWR.

DCA using Rwy 1 the AAR (Airport Acceptance Rate) ranges from 36 (VMC>2000/3) to 30 (Low IMC). DCA Runway 19 AAR ranges from 32 (VMC>2000/3) to 26 (Low IMC)

EWR using 4L/22R for departures and 4R/22L for Arrivals the AAR ranges from 40 (VMC >2000/3) to as low as 26 (Low IMC)
*I'm not getting into the weeds on the special configurations that EWR can run such as arriving Rwy 11 Land and Hold Short of 4L/22R (only adds 8 to the rate and only used in VMC<2000/3 conditions).

EWR, an airport with two parallel runways spaced 950' apart that are used with departures on the inner runway, and arrivals on the outer, can only accept 4-8 more arrivals per hour during good weather, and the same number of arrivals during adverse IMC as the current DCA. If and only *IF* a new runway was to be built there would only likely be an increase in the arrival rate during good weather days. There is not enough of a gain during all weather conditions to warrant spending at least half a billion dollars on a new runway.

Limited Airspace aside, the residents in Rosslyn and up the Potomac towards the American Legion bridge would fight this bitterly from the start. These people complained of noise increases when the new RNAV procedures were put in place years ago. In fact groups in Arlington, Montgomery County, and DC are *STILL* complaining about noise from DCA's flightpaths (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/arlin ... r-BB1aNdiW). Note that DCA already has noise regulations for operations between 2200 and 0659 (https://www.flyreagan.com/dca/dca-reaga ... noise-rule)

Personally I think any benefit that could arise from a parallel 1/19, is likely already acheived with the occasional arrival/departure on 15/33 (I've seen A319s and smaller both arrive and depart 15). If MWAA is going to spend $500m to $1b on something, it should be replacing C/D at IAD, not a new runway at DCA.

ok you guys win. Not sure anyone will be building a new runway anywhere in the US let alone in DC.

I do have a final question = does anyone know how MDW's uses it's parallels?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Not sure anyone will be building a new runway anywhere in the US let alone in DC.

This is likely the next runway to built at BWI/DCA/IAD; 12R/30L at IAD: https://www.mwaa.com/business/d2-projec ... fth-runway

If I remember correctly I have seen a version of BWI's Master Plan/ALP that has a provision for a Parallel 10/28 well south of the exisiting 10/28 and south of the Midfield Cargo Complex, with a length around 8000'

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I do have a final question = does anyone know how MDW's uses it's parallels?

Unfortunately I have no ATC knowledge of MDW or C90. From what I've seen: 13C/31C and 4R/22L are the primaries, especially for the air crarriers, but I have seen videos with bizjets and smaller craft landing on 4L/22R

MohawkWeekend wrote:

I agree the NIMBY folks would kill this. But last time I was at DCA (pre-covid) they were extensively using 2 runways - the crosswind runway for RJ's and corporates.

Correct there would be no simultaneous ops. But CLE had the old 23R/5L (6400x200) this close and there were some efficiencies in not having to wait for the landing aircraft to clear the runway before T/O clearance on the shorter runway. Also would help out if a plane is disabled on landing runway or it needs to be closed for plowing or treatment.

It would be interesting to get a commercial pilots view point on this.

I think the point is that you don't even need to get to the NIMBYs; this is an idea that doesn't make any sense on the merits. A massive expense for little to no benefit. The region has already made the clear policy decision to direct growth to IAD.

All of the examples of closely spaced parallel runways like MDW or SDU or CLE have a common thread - they're old. Nobody builds airports that way anymore for a reason. I tried to think of any examples of an airport building a new, closely spaced parallel runway, but I can't think of any.

It's true that the crosswinds do get some use at DCA, but 'extensively' is a stretch. The DCA noise report has some data from 2019 (page 8): https://www.flyreagan.com/sites/default ... report.pdf

The crosswinds (15/33 and 4/22) were used for a total of 6% of all arrivals (the vast majority of which happened on 33) and 7.1% of all departures (again, the vast majority of which use 15/33)

N737ER wrote:

In addition to everything that atcsundevil mentioned in his post (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456155&start=50#p22695325), I'll dive into the Airport Arrival Rate (AAR) for DCA, and a notorious East Coast airport: EWR.

DCA using Rwy 1 the AAR (Airport Acceptance Rate) ranges from 36 (VMC>2000/3) to 30 (Low IMC). DCA Runway 19 AAR ranges from 32 (VMC>2000/3) to 26 (Low IMC)

EWR using 4L/22R for departures and 4R/22L for Arrivals the AAR ranges from 40 (VMC >2000/3) to as low as 26 (Low IMC)
*I'm not getting into the weeds on the special configurations that EWR can run such as arriving Rwy 11 Land and Hold Short of 4L/22R (only adds 8 to the rate and only used in VMC<2000/3 conditions).

EWR, an airport with two parallel runways spaced 950' apart that are used with departures on the inner runway, and arrivals on the outer, can only accept 4-8 more arrivals per hour during good weather, and the same number of arrivals during adverse IMC as the current DCA. If and only *IF* a new runway was to be built there would only likely be an increase in the arrival rate during good weather days. There is not enough of a gain during all weather conditions to warrant spending at least half a billion dollars on a new runway.

Limited Airspace aside, the residents in Rosslyn and up the Potomac towards the American Legion bridge would fight this bitterly from the start. These people complained of noise increases when the new RNAV procedures were put in place years ago. In fact groups in Arlington, Montgomery County, and DC are *STILL* complaining about noise from DCA's flightpaths (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/arlin ... r-BB1aNdiW). Note that DCA already has noise regulations for operations between 2200 and 0659 (https://www.flyreagan.com/dca/dca-reaga ... noise-rule)

Personally I think any benefit that could arise from a parallel 1/19, is likely already acheived with the occasional arrival/departure on 15/33 (I've seen A319s and smaller both arrive and depart 15). If MWAA is going to spend $500m to $1b on something, it should be replacing C/D at IAD, not a new runway at DCA.

As a pilot who is based in DC and flies out of DCA a lot, I agree. Not much to be gained by the concept. DCA tower does a great job of moving planes. Especially compared to Dulles. (With Potomac Control and Center contributing both positively and negatively) Now if you put the parallel runway to the west of the terminals and over the GW parkway (similar concept has been discussed for EWR) you might gain something. But no way would the Locals allow that.

As a resident of DC, who recently moved even closer to the Potomac even I’m amazed how being just a mile closer makes a difference in the Jet noise. And I like jet noise! Well maybe not those mornings when I can hear the first takeoffs and know what time it is without opening my eyes (happened at my old place as well). I’m just glad I wasn’t living here in the 1970’s or 80’s. Those 727’s, DC-9’s etc must have been loud.

Due to Covid, I fear the double wide will still be in use when I retire in the next decade.

N737ER wrote:

In addition to everything that atcsundevil mentioned in his post (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456155&start=50#p22695325), I'll dive into the Airport Arrival Rate (AAR) for DCA, and a notorious East Coast airport: EWR.

DCA using Rwy 1 the AAR (Airport Acceptance Rate) ranges from 36 (VMC>2000/3) to 30 (Low IMC). DCA Runway 19 AAR ranges from 32 (VMC>2000/3) to 26 (Low IMC)

EWR using 4L/22R for departures and 4R/22L for Arrivals the AAR ranges from 40 (VMC >2000/3) to as low as 26 (Low IMC)
*I'm not getting into the weeds on the special configurations that EWR can run such as arriving Rwy 11 Land and Hold Short of 4L/22R (only adds 8 to the rate and only used in VMC<2000/3 conditions).

EWR, an airport with two parallel runways spaced 950' apart that are used with departures on the inner runway, and arrivals on the outer, can only accept 4-8 more arrivals per hour during good weather, and the same number of arrivals during adverse IMC as the current DCA. If and only *IF* a new runway was to be built there would only likely be an increase in the arrival rate during good weather days. There is not enough of a gain during all weather conditions to warrant spending at least half a billion dollars on a new runway.

Limited Airspace aside, the residents in Rosslyn and up the Potomac towards the American Legion bridge would fight this bitterly from the start. These people complained of noise increases when the new RNAV procedures were put in place years ago. In fact groups in Arlington, Montgomery County, and DC are *STILL* complaining about noise from DCA's flightpaths (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/arlin ... r-BB1aNdiW). Note that DCA already has noise regulations for operations between 2200 and 0659 (https://www.flyreagan.com/dca/dca-reaga ... noise-rule)

Personally I think any benefit that could arise from a parallel 1/19, is likely already acheived with the occasional arrival/departure on 15/33 (I've seen A319s and smaller both arrive and depart 15). If MWAA is going to spend $500m to $1b on something, it should be replacing C/D at IAD, not a new runway at DCA.

And if you wanted to more cheaply spend money and time on landfill for runway space at DCA, you could extend 15/33 to allow more mainline takeoffs on 15. Not that it can't be done at present - one of my most memorable takeoffs was a 752 on DCA-DEN from 15, which is 5,200ish feet - but even a few hundred feet would make a difference.

But as you said, there are better places to spend the money.

N737ER wrote:

In addition to everything that atcsundevil mentioned in his post (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1456155&start=50#p22695325), I'll dive into the Airport Arrival Rate (AAR) for DCA, and a notorious East Coast airport: EWR.

DCA using Rwy 1 the AAR (Airport Acceptance Rate) ranges from 36 (VMC>2000/3) to 30 (Low IMC). DCA Runway 19 AAR ranges from 32 (VMC>2000/3) to 26 (Low IMC)

EWR using 4L/22R for departures and 4R/22L for Arrivals the AAR ranges from 40 (VMC >2000/3) to as low as 26 (Low IMC)
*I'm not getting into the weeds on the special configurations that EWR can run such as arriving Rwy 11 Land and Hold Short of 4L/22R (only adds 8 to the rate and only used in VMC<2000/3 conditions).

EWR, an airport with two parallel runways spaced 950' apart that are used with departures on the inner runway, and arrivals on the outer, can only accept 4-8 more arrivals per hour during good weather, and the same number of arrivals during adverse IMC as the current DCA. If and only *IF* a new runway was to be built there would only likely be an increase in the arrival rate during good weather days. There is not enough of a gain during all weather conditions to warrant spending at least half a billion dollars on a new runway.

Limited Airspace aside, the residents in Rosslyn and up the Potomac towards the American Legion bridge would fight this bitterly from the start. These people complained of noise increases when the new RNAV procedures were put in place years ago. In fact groups in Arlington, Montgomery County, and DC are *STILL* complaining about noise from DCA's flightpaths (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/arlin ... r-BB1aNdiW). Note that DCA already has noise regulations for operations between 2200 and 0659 (https://www.flyreagan.com/dca/dca-reaga ... noise-rule)

Personally I think any benefit that could arise from a parallel 1/19, is likely already acheived with the occasional arrival/departure on 15/33 (I've seen A319s and smaller both arrive and depart 15). If MWAA is going to spend $500m to $1b on something, it should be replacing C/D at IAD, not a new runway at DCA.

Oh good, someone showed up who actually knows what they're talking about. I'm in a center and I normally try to stay in my lane at least it sounds like I was on the right track. Even if an efficiency gain were worth the expense, and if it managed to clear the very high hurdles the environmental studies would pose, any longtime DC resident would know that there ain't no way the NIMBYs will let it happen. There is a literal army of high powered lawyers that live on DCA's doorstep, and they will litigate another runway into oblivion.

N737ER wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Not sure anyone will be building a new runway anywhere in the US let alone in DC.

This is likely the next runway to built at BWI/DCA/IAD; 12R/30L at IAD: https://www.mwaa.com/business/d2-projec ... fth-runway

IAD absolutely needs this runway, and I believe it is likely to happen within the decade. I'm sure you're aware, but others may not be — 12/30 is a pretty vital runway at IAD. It gets regular daily use, but several times a year, ops are restricted to the crosswind due to weather conditions. It always seems to happen during the afternoon arrival push, forcing all departures and arrivals onto the crosswind (usually 30). Needless to say, it's a freaking mess when that happens. It's the same kind of mess the handful of times each year when DCA can only operate with the RNAV RNP to 19. Most RJs don't have RNP, so more often then not, it's indefinite holding followed by a diversion. A second crosswind at IAD would be enough of an efficiency and operational gain to be worth the expense, even if the total number of ops running from IAD doesn't necessarily translate to the airport needing five runways.

blockski wrote:

It's true that the crosswinds do get some use at DCA, but 'extensively' is a stretch. The DCA noise report has some data from 2019 (page 8): https://www.flyreagan.com/sites/default ... report.pdf

The crosswinds (15/33 and 4/22) were used for a total of 6% of all arrivals (the vast majority of which happened on 33) and 7.1% of all departures (again, the vast majority of which use 15/33)

Definitely. I said in my last post that DCA is effectively a single runway airport, and this is why. I honestly wonder why they even keep the other two. I'm sure there's a reason, but it seems like a big maintenance expense for fairly limited use.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

Especially compared to Dulles. (With Potomac Control and Center contributing both positively and negatively)

I'll assume only positive stuff for the Center side? If not, I have holding instructions, advise when ready to copy

IADCA wrote:

And if you wanted to more cheaply spend money and time on landfill for runway space at DCA, you could extend 15/33 to allow more mainline takeoffs on 15. Not that it can't be done at present - one of my most memorable takeoffs was a 752 on DCA-DEN from 15, which is 5,200ish feet - but even a few hundred feet would make a difference.

But as you said, there are better places to spend the money.

Landfill into the Potomac to extend 15/33 wouldn't be possible. The Potomac is actually pretty narrow through there, and the environmental impacts would absolutely prevent it from happening. The river moves with a hell of a lot of force through there, and narrowing it would only make things more extreme. I'm also not 100% sure, but I don't think runways can be built new or lengthened so as to require an EMAS. I believe an EMAS pad is retrofit only, so it can't be relied upon to aid in lengthening the runway. If something ever did happen, the FAA would be big time sued.

In reference to DCA noise, I live near Belle Haven, south of DCA by about six miles. On mornings when planes take off to the north you don’t need an alarm clock. You hear the engines starting right after six am.

atcsundevil wrote:

IADCA wrote:

And if you wanted to more cheaply spend money and time on landfill for runway space at DCA, you could extend 15/33 to allow more mainline takeoffs on 15. Not that it can't be done at present - one of my most memorable takeoffs was a 752 on DCA-DEN from 15, which is 5,200ish feet - but even a few hundred feet would make a difference.

But as you said, there are better places to spend the money.

Landfill into the Potomac to extend 15/33 wouldn't be possible. The Potomac is actually pretty narrow through there, and the environmental impacts would absolutely prevent it from happening. The river moves with a hell of a lot of force through there, and narrowing it would only make things more extreme. I'm also not 100% sure, but I don't think runways can be built new or lengthened so as to require an EMAS. I believe an EMAS pad is retrofit only, so it can't be relied upon to aid in lengthening the runway. If something ever did happen, the FAA would be big time sued.

I think you may be right about the EMAS, which would kill the idea. I'm familiar with the water in that area - I kayak it reasonably regularly. It's not too bad current-wise relative to some other areas nearby that seem pretty benign, like under Chain Bridge and Key Bridge (less so). What makes the water sporty there is that the wind often gives it a pretty good whip, which doesn't happen even a mile or two upstream. I'm fairly sure you could do a couple hundred feet on the 15 end without an actual environmental issue given the direction of the current and depth there, although you'd be tied up in years of permitting and probably litigation to get there.

atcsundevil wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

Especially compared to Dulles. (With Potomac Control and Center contributing both positively and negatively)

I'll assume only positive stuff for the Center side? If not, I have holding instructions, advise when ready to copy

My negative actually has nothing to do with Wash center itself...it’s all the congestion that emanates from NY Center and Boston. The ground delays, the low level departures and arrivals. having to be at 10’000 feet 40-50 miles from the airport. I understand the need but it’s still annoying. It’s a huge airspace jigsaw puzzle where the size and shape of the pieces are always changing.

But sure, I’ll take holding, we get paid by the minute.

PS. Circle to land on 30 is always a fun time. Just wish we could go back to landing on 12 at midnight or at the end of a redeye.

The circle to land on 30 - is that a traffic conflict on 1-19 or spacing?

MohawkWeekend wrote:

The circle to land on 30 - is that a traffic conflict on 1-19 or spacing?

Due to winds out of the west. A couple days a year the winds will be strong enough that exceed the demonstrated crosswinds of the arriving planes for the 1’s. So landing runway 30 becomes the only option.

Although I no longer work in the industry (or work period!), I appreciate when pilots, ATC folks and airline employees add in their thoughts and experiencs as happened in this tread.

Thanks,
MohawkWeekend

As if on cue.....DCA noise issue rears its head again.

https://wtop.com/dc/2021/03/dc-attorney ... se-policy/

EssentialBusDC wrote:

As if on cue.....DCA noise issue rears its head again.

https://wtop.com/dc/2021/03/dc-attorney ... se-policy/

Yup..anyone thinking you're going to add more flights to DCA is dreaming. Between facility and runway constraints and noise complaints, I don't see it....especially when Dulles has plenty of room to spare.

IADCA wrote:

I'm fairly sure you could do a couple hundred feet on the 15 end without an actual environmental issue given the direction of the current and depth there, although you'd be tied up in years of permitting and probably litigation to get there.

I think you might run into some obstacle clearance issues if you pushed out 15. I'm not brushed up on my FAR part 77 know-how, but I suspect I-395 would pose an issue.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

My negative actually has nothing to do with Wash center itself...it’s all the congestion that emanates from NY Center and Boston. The ground delays, the low level departures and arrivals. having to be at 10’000 feet 40-50 miles from the airport. I understand the need but it’s still annoying. It’s a huge airspace jigsaw puzzle where the size and shape of the pieces are always changing.

But sure, I’ll take holding, we get paid by the minute.

PS. Circle to land on 30 is always a fun time. Just wish we could go back to landing on 12 at midnight or at the end of a redeye.

As long as we rank in your top five east coast centers, I'll chalk that up as a win. We always get a hard time because we're notorious for reroutes, but that's only because ZNY/N90 won't take planes on the wrong routes (or even what they feel are the "wrong routes"). It's always a pleasure working in this part of the country

Landing 30 is definitely a pain for us, but I'm sure it's cool to fly it. Usually they force a big fat mile in trail restriction, and we have to give the decend via "landing north, but expect runway 30". That extra verbage when you're already down the tubes vectoring and/or holding is a bit tedious, not to mention I forget to say it half the time and have to go back and correct myself. A parallel crosswind would be much appreciated by all.

Any idea why they won't give you 12? It's certainly quiet enough at night, so I don't see why not. Noise abatement maybe? The approach to 19R puts you over my house if it makes you feel any better about it.

atcsundevil wrote:

IADCA wrote:

I'm fairly sure you could do a couple hundred feet on the 15 end without an actual environmental issue given the direction of the current and depth there, although you'd be tied up in years of permitting and probably litigation to get there.

I think you might run into some obstacle clearance issues if you pushed out 15. I'm not brushed up on my FAR part 77 know-how, but I suspect I-395 would pose an issue.

Not sure I follow. 395 is on the 33 end of the runway. You can take off on 1, which is much closer to I-395 than 15 is to...well, pretty much any road. So I'm not sure obstacle clearance is much of an issue.

atcsundevil wrote:

IADCA wrote:

I'm fairly sure you could do a couple hundred feet on the 15 end without an actual environmental issue given the direction of the current and depth there, although you'd be tied up in years of permitting and probably litigation to get there.

I think you might run into some obstacle clearance issues if you pushed out 15. I'm not brushed up on my FAR part 77 know-how, but I suspect I-395 would pose an issue.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

My negative actually has nothing to do with Wash center itself...it’s all the congestion that emanates from NY Center and Boston. The ground delays, the low level departures and arrivals. having to be at 10’000 feet 40-50 miles from the airport. I understand the need but it’s still annoying. It’s a huge airspace jigsaw puzzle where the size and shape of the pieces are always changing.

But sure, I’ll take holding, we get paid by the minute.

PS. Circle to land on 30 is always a fun time. Just wish we could go back to landing on 12 at midnight or at the end of a redeye.

As long as we rank in your top five east coast centers, I'll chalk that up as a win. We always get a hard time because we're notorious for reroutes, but that's only because ZNY/N90 won't take planes on the wrong routes (or even what they feel are the "wrong routes"). It's always a pleasure working in this part of the country

Landing 30 is definitely a pain for us, but I'm sure it's cool to fly it. Usually they force a big fat mile in trail restriction, and we have to give the decend via "landing north, but expect runway 30". That extra verbage when you're already down the tubes vectoring and/or holding is a bit tedious, not to mention I forget to say it half the time and have to go back and correct myself. A parallel crosswind would be much appreciated by all.

Any idea why they won't give you 12? It's certainly quiet enough at night, so I don't see why not. Noise abatement maybe? The approach to 19R puts you over my house if it makes you feel any better about it.

My guess is all the development at South Riding and surrounding area combined with a preference for 30 departures means 12 is a use for emergency only kind of runway.

How many centers are there on the east coast?

15/33 gets used more often in the winter when you have those low pressure systems out of the north that bring winds of up to 20 MPH or 30 MPH. When those systems are in the area, you will get attempts to move most of the E-jet operations to 33 and even now and again a A319 will land on 33.

Runways 15 in my experience is more of a spring and summer runway which sees use in the morning and afternoon when the onshore winds from the bay and ocean typically come from the south and when the thunderstorms often bring in moist weather from the south. Where you have ATC wx delays and the like, 15 is popular with the (again) E-jets.

I flew out of DCA on Tuesday morning and RPA3592 specifically asked if he could take RWY 4 or RWY 15. Ground ATC seemed a bit surprised at first given that 19 was not being heavily utilized but readily gave approval for 15 with a left turn after departure. I get the feeling this particlar RPA captain enjoys that particular configuration.

washingtonflyer wrote:

15/33 gets used more often in the winter when you have those low pressure systems out of the north that bring winds of up to 20 MPH or 30 MPH. When those systems are in the area, you will get attempts to move most of the E-jet operations to 33 and even now and again a A319 will land on 33.

Runways 15 in my experience is more of a spring and summer runway which sees use in the morning and afternoon when the onshore winds from the bay and ocean typically come from the south and when the thunderstorms often bring in moist weather from the south. Where you have ATC wx delays and the like, 15 is popular with the (again) E-jets.

I flew out of DCA on Tuesday morning and RPA3592 specifically asked if he could take RWY 4 or RWY 15. Ground ATC seemed a bit surprised at first given that 19 was not being heavily utilized but readily gave approval for 15 with a left turn after departure. I get the feeling this particlar RPA captain enjoys that particular configuration.

15 is great you going south if 19 was backed up. I always ran data for 15 when I was going south if we departed during a busy push. I will miss my river visuals 19, circle to land 33, and my runway 1 departures now that am with a different company flying cargo.

N292UX wrote:

flyiguy wrote:

WN is resuming MDW - IAD service to compliment to ATL & DEN flights.

FLY

IAD's a bit of an oddball station for WN. They used to also fly to FLL/MCO from IAD. The station's completely dwarfed by both BWI & DCA, especially BWI. I think there's certainly routes WN can add from IAD that wouldn't have much of an effect on BWI/DCA. IAD-LAS/PHX doesn't seem like a terrible idea considering UA is the only one on that route (F9 dropped IAD-LAS recently), and they can't add it from DCA due to perimeter restrictions. IAD-HOU doesn't seem like a terrible move either considering how much the HOU station has grown recently. Outside of that I really don't see a ton of potential for WN growth out of IAD. Most new routes will be from BWI/DCA.

With the failure of Independence's Air JetBlue announced prematurely it's plans to set up a min focus city at IAD.
WN saw that threat and quickly announced service to IAD in a defensive move to protect BWI.

Flyguy

https://wtop.com/arlington/2021/03/first-steps-toward-crystal-city-airport-pedestrian-bridge/

Arlington is going to study adding a pedestrian bridge between Crystal City and DCA. This would make a much better direct route to walk to the airport than the current route available. Right now you have to cross onto the Mt. Vernon trail at the north end of Crystal city, walk back down the trail, cross under the GW Parkway, walk back north again to the parking garage entrance, then walk across the garage to the terminal.

Flew through IAD yesterday afternoon and found it to be much busier than I expected. KLM, QR, BA, LH, EK, EY, and SK were all on the ground at the time, more than what I had expected. It was extremely busy during the UA afternoon bank - I'd imagine 70-80 UA flights took off during that bank. I imagine that's the same for the morning bank that's up and running again. Outside of UA & International airlines, DL was the only other carrier I saw on the ground. 717 to ATL and a CRJ-900 to DTW. No AA/AS/F9/WN which surprised me.

Flew a UA E175 to IND and actually flew out of the Z gates. The Z gates seemed to be used only by UA E175s yesterday. Is that permanent? I definitely did not expect to be flying out of the Z gates.

With that in mind how many daily departures is UA running from IAD in March & April? I'd imagine around ~180 on peak days and maybe a little lower on other days.

N292UX wrote:

Flew through IAD yesterday afternoon and found it to be much busier than I expected. KLM, QR, BA, LH, EK, EY, and SK were all on the ground at the time, more than what I had expected. It was extremely busy during the UA afternoon bank - I'd imagine 70-80 UA flights took off during that bank. I imagine that's the same for the morning bank that's up and running again. Outside of UA & International airlines, DL was the only other carrier I saw on the ground. 717 to ATL and a CRJ-900 to DTW. No AA/AS/F9/WN which surprised me.

Flew a UA E175 to IND and actually flew out of the Z gates. The Z gates seemed to be used only by UA E175s yesterday. Is that permanent? I definitely did not expect to be flying out of the Z gates.

I think the early evening bank is really stretching UA’s gates to the max...hence the spill over to the Z gates. It’ll be interesting to see if UA attempts to bring back a third bank for the summer.

FlyPNS1 wrote:

N292UX wrote:

Flew through IAD yesterday afternoon and found it to be much busier than I expected. KLM, QR, BA, LH, EK, EY, and SK were all on the ground at the time, more than what I had expected. It was extremely busy during the UA afternoon bank - I'd imagine 70-80 UA flights took off during that bank. I imagine that's the same for the morning bank that's up and running again. Outside of UA & International airlines, DL was the only other carrier I saw on the ground. 717 to ATL and a CRJ-900 to DTW. No AA/AS/F9/WN which surprised me.

Flew a UA E175 to IND and actually flew out of the Z gates. The Z gates seemed to be used only by UA E175s yesterday. Is that permanent? I definitely did not expect to be flying out of the Z gates.

I think the early evening bank is really stretching UA’s gates to the max...hence the spill over to the Z gates. It’ll be interesting to see if UA attempts to bring back a third bank for the summer.

I imagine they will add a third bank over the summer, maybe the 12PM bank. The RJ gates in the A concourse were also completely full. UA can easily take advantage of the Z gates at the moment with AC/F9 (I think that's who uses the Z gates) having little to no flights at IAD. C/D were almost entirely full too. There appeared to be airstairs set up beyond the C/D concourse so that could mean some additional RJ parking if they run out of space.

But the IAD hub is heavily reliant on banks. There's basically no other UA flights outside the 4 banks aside from some hub flights and BOS/MCO. I think UA will eventually add a couple more banks (maybe a 2-3pm bank) and maybe some other flights scattered throughout the day. It's been mentioned before.

N292UX wrote:

Flew through IAD yesterday afternoon and found it to be much busier than I expected. KLM, QR, BA, LH, EK, EY, and SK were all on the ground at the time, more than what I had expected. It was extremely busy during the UA afternoon bank - I'd imagine 70-80 UA flights took off during that bank. I imagine that's the same for the morning bank that's up and running again. Outside of UA & International airlines, DL was the only other carrier I saw on the ground. 717 to ATL and a CRJ-900 to DTW. No AA/AS/F9/WN which surprised me.

Flew a UA E175 to IND and actually flew out of the Z gates. The Z gates seemed to be used only by UA E175s yesterday. Is that permanent? I definitely did not expect to be flying out of the Z gates.

While a lot of International carriers have returned, their frequencies are less than daily and some like SK,EY and MS sit there planes for 24 hours to utilize one crew only. BA has a unique rotation to enable a storage of a spare A350 at Dulles where the inbound at 2030 sits until the next evening at 2230. The previous nights plane leaves at 2230, BA is daily. F9 has moved from the Z gates to the B terminal and with AC leaving that has freed up the Z gates for UA to put a couple of E175's in the afternoon bank.

UA seems to be adjusting their IAD hub for the time being realizing their popular European flights won't be as prevalent this summer and are capitalizing on the increased domestic travel demand. As well as boosting their Caribbean and Central American routes.

N292UX wrote:

Flew through IAD yesterday afternoon and found it to be much busier than I expected. KLM, QR, BA, LH, EK, EY, and SK were all on the ground at the time, more than what I had expected. It was extremely busy during the UA afternoon bank - I'd imagine 70-80 UA flights took off during that bank. I imagine that's the same for the morning bank that's up and running again. Outside of UA & International airlines, DL was the only other carrier I saw on the ground. 717 to ATL and a CRJ-900 to DTW. No AA/AS/F9/WN which surprised me.

Flew a UA E175 to IND and actually flew out of the Z gates. The Z gates seemed to be used only by UA E175s yesterday. Is that permanent? I definitely did not expect to be flying out of the Z gates.

The morning bank has been quite a bit smaller than the afternoon bank. The only difference with the March schedule is that the morning bank is now daily (previously there was no morning bank on Tuesdays and Wednesdays). The afternoon bank has been pretty heavy almost throughout COVID — probably since last June or July. It has certainly picked up a fair amount from before though, but it's still roughly 30% below 2019 numbers.

If the new infrastructure bill passes, does anyone see UA or MWAA attempting to access those funds to finally build a new concourse C/D at IAD?

npratt wrote:

If the new infrastructure bill passes, does anyone see UA or MWAA attempting to access those funds to finally build a new concourse C/D at IAD?

I've moved your post to the DC Aviation Thread, because that question is probably better discussed here than in the UA Thread.

✈️ atcsundevil

npratt wrote:

If the new infrastructure bill passes, does anyone see UA or MWAA attempting to access those funds to finally build a new concourse C/D at IAD?

The "interim" C/D concourse is like a roach at this point. It'll never die and will be here long after we are all gone.

To answer your question, frankly, no, I don't think so. But I do think a new concourse will be built, just probably not for another 10-15 years.

MWAA is currently in the process of replacing the C/D roof and HVAC system IIRC, and UA is currently building a new Polaris Lounge on the concourse. Apparently the lounge is being built with a "modular" design but unless it was built on wheels I can't see how a multi-story steel framed building is modular.

I honestly think the 2008 Financial Crisis killed immediate plans for the facility, plus I guess the merger-IAD's future seemed to be in a limbo for a while. Plans and renderings for the facility were drawn up (they all looked very nice), and MWAA demolished the old Concourse G to prepare for the concourse's construction.

C/D is really only busy during peak-periods, and it isn't like United has some grandiose plan to dramatically expand at Dulles, hence they have no business case to invest in a brand-new facility. It's a shame, because C/D is a window-less dark turd. It's been polished a couple of times but at the end of the day a turd is still a turd. Off the top of my head, C/D is probably the worst hub facility for a US airline today.

Remember, the long-range (and I mean long, like 50-60 years) plan for Dulles that was approved in the early 2000s is to build parallel concourses and a second landslide terminal as capacity warrants. The existing Z gates will be re-named A Gates. The current Concourse A/B will become the B gates. The C/D replacement "Tier 2" will become Concourse C. The plans call for an additional 2 Tiers (Tier 3, D Gates and Tier 4 E, Gates). After Tier 4 is complete an additional terminal will be built on the south end of the field and the AeroTrain system will connect all areas in a horseshoe. (https://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/file ... system.pdf)

The region is growing to be the third largest metro area in the US. Traffic at Dulles was really picking up the last couple of years, with several new carriers. I think the growth mode will resume in probably 2-4 years, and maybe a couple of years after that MWAA/UA will be willing to talk about their plans for C/D.

And as the world turns......

https://wjla.com/news/local/metro-gener ... line-again

washingtonflyer wrote:

And as the world turns......

https://wjla.com/news/local/metro-gener ... line-again

There really isn't any new information here; it just makes "official" what was announced about a month or so ago.

Granted I still believe the extension's opening will be further delayed. At my best guess, probably looking at a late Spring/early Summer 2022 opening. Metro has absolutely no incentive to open the line at this point.

npratt wrote:

If the new infrastructure bill passes, does anyone see UA or MWAA attempting to access those funds to finally build a new concourse C/D at IAD?

I don't think there are enough details about the plan to say one way or another.

A few things we do know:

- The infrastructure plan is just a plan at this point; there isn't even a bill written yet. The aviation section could plausibly apply to a project like C/D, but the details are TBD and the devil will be in the details.
- The White House has said they want this plan to be passed in addition to the regular reauthorization bills, not as a part of them. The FAA was reauthorized in 2018 and that law runs through FY 2023.
- Reporting indicates the desire to make the funding part of competitive grants, not formula funding: https://twitter.com/samjmintz/status/13 ... 4328250376

So, what criteria would be used to evaluate those projects would be also TBD, but the obvious themes from the rest of the proposal are already known. Here's the text: https://punchbowl.news/wp-content/uploa ... -Sheet.pdf

Improve ports, waterways, and airports. The United States built modern aviation, but
our airports lag far behind our competitors. According to some rankings, no U.S. airports
rank in the top 25 of airports worldwide. Our ports and waterways need repair and
reimagination too. President Biden is calling on Congress to invest $25 billion in our
airports, including funding for the Airport Improvement Program, upgrades to FAA
assets that ensure safe and efficient air travel, and a new program to support terminal
renovations and multimodal connections for affordable, convenient, car-free access to air
travel. President Biden is calling on Congress to invest an additional $17 billion in inland
waterways, coastal ports, land ports of entry, and ferries, which are all essential to our
nation’s freight. This includes a Healthy Ports program to mitigate the cumulative
impacts of air pollution on neighborhoods near ports, often communities of color. These
investments will position the United States as a global leader in clean freight and
aviation.

Knowing other areas of focus are on sustainability, I would presume they'd focus on much more efficient buildings and things like that.

So, that could plausibly apply to a new C/D concourse, if it was pitched in the right way.

USAirALB wrote:

npratt wrote:

If the new infrastructure bill passes, does anyone see UA or MWAA attempting to access those funds to finally build a new concourse C/D at IAD?

The "interim" C/D concourse is like a roach at this point. It'll never die and will be here long after we are all gone.

To answer your question, frankly, no, I don't think so. But I do think a new concourse will be built, just probably not for another 10-15 years.

MWAA is currently in the process of replacing the C/D roof and HVAC system IIRC, and UA is currently building a new Polaris Lounge on the concourse. Apparently the lounge is being built with a "modular" design but unless it was built on wheels I can't see how a multi-story steel framed building is modular.

I honestly think the 2008 Financial Crisis killed immediate plans for the facility, plus I guess the merger-IAD's future seemed to be in a limbo for a while. Plans and renderings for the facility were drawn up (they all looked very nice), and MWAA demolished the old Concourse G to prepare for the concourse's construction.

C/D is really only busy during peak-periods, and it isn't like United has some grandiose plan to dramatically expand at Dulles, hence they have no business case to invest in a brand-new facility. It's a shame, because C/D is a window-less dark turd. It's been polished a couple of times but at the end of the day a turd is still a turd. Off the top of my head, C/D is probably the worst hub facility for a US airline today.

Remember, the long-range (and I mean long, like 50-60 years) plan for Dulles that was approved in the early 2000s is to build parallel concourses and a second landslide terminal as capacity warrants. The existing Z gates will be re-named A Gates. The current Concourse A/B will become the B gates. The C/D replacement "Tier 2" will become Concourse C. The plans call for an additional 2 Tiers (Tier 3, D Gates and Tier 4 E, Gates). After Tier 4 is complete an additional terminal will be built on the south end of the field and the AeroTrain system will connect all areas in a horseshoe. (https://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/file ... system.pdf)

The region is growing to be the third largest metro area in the US. Traffic at Dulles was really picking up the last couple of years, with several new carriers. I think the growth mode will resume in probably 2-4 years, and maybe a couple of years after that MWAA/UA will be willing to talk about their plans for C/D.

Sadly I agree with you on the timeline. I retire mid next decade and doubt I’ll see a replacement before I retire. I still hold out hope. I mean if LGA can get remodeled, and no longer be the worst facility in the nation, so can IAD.

Thanks for the link. Two things stand out about it.

1. I don’t ever envision IAD needing so many concourses. Not with DCA and BWI splitting the DMV traffic. That’s more terminal space then DEN (even with DEN adding the new gates)

2. The layout still assumes having to get to A for a portion of the Express ops from C/D. Whatever United terminal eventually builds should have all connections under one roof without having to take the train to connect. That’s just very inefficient, and to see that as a long term layout is disappointing. And I don’t think B is large enough to house UAL anymore so doing a terminal swap in the future isn’t going to work as a solution.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

npratt wrote:

If the new infrastructure bill passes, does anyone see UA or MWAA attempting to access those funds to finally build a new concourse C/D at IAD?

The "interim" C/D concourse is like a roach at this point. It'll never die and will be here long after we are all gone.

To answer your question, frankly, no, I don't think so. But I do think a new concourse will be built, just probably not for another 10-15 years.

MWAA is currently in the process of replacing the C/D roof and HVAC system IIRC, and UA is currently building a new Polaris Lounge on the concourse. Apparently the lounge is being built with a "modular" design but unless it was built on wheels I can't see how a multi-story steel framed building is modular.

I honestly think the 2008 Financial Crisis killed immediate plans for the facility, plus I guess the merger-IAD's future seemed to be in a limbo for a while. Plans and renderings for the facility were drawn up (they all looked very nice), and MWAA demolished the old Concourse G to prepare for the concourse's construction.

C/D is really only busy during peak-periods, and it isn't like United has some grandiose plan to dramatically expand at Dulles, hence they have no business case to invest in a brand-new facility. It's a shame, because C/D is a window-less dark turd. It's been polished a couple of times but at the end of the day a turd is still a turd. Off the top of my head, C/D is probably the worst hub facility for a US airline today.

Remember, the long-range (and I mean long, like 50-60 years) plan for Dulles that was approved in the early 2000s is to build parallel concourses and a second landslide terminal as capacity warrants. The existing Z gates will be re-named A Gates. The current Concourse A/B will become the B gates. The C/D replacement "Tier 2" will become Concourse C. The plans call for an additional 2 Tiers (Tier 3, D Gates and Tier 4 E, Gates). After Tier 4 is complete an additional terminal will be built on the south end of the field and the AeroTrain system will connect all areas in a horseshoe. (https://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/file ... system.pdf)

The region is growing to be the third largest metro area in the US. Traffic at Dulles was really picking up the last couple of years, with several new carriers. I think the growth mode will resume in probably 2-4 years, and maybe a couple of years after that MWAA/UA will be willing to talk about their plans for C/D.

Sadly I agree with you on the timeline. I retire mid next decade and doubt I’ll see a replacement before I retire. I still hold out hope. I mean if LGA can get remodeled, and no longer be the worst facility in the nation, so can IAD.

Thanks for the link. Two things stand out about it.

1. I don’t ever envision IAD needing so many concourses. Not with DCA and BWI splitting the DMV traffic. That’s more terminal space then DEN (even with DEN adding the new gates)

2. The layout still assumes having to get to A for a portion of the Express ops from C/D. Whatever United terminal eventually builds should have all connections under one roof without having to take the train to connect. That’s just very inefficient, and to see that as a long term layout is disappointing. And I don’t think B is large enough to house UAL anymore so doing a terminal swap in the future isn’t going to work as a solution.

One area that a lot of people forget about Dulles is the Z Concourse (formerly T). The area has 5 gates currently, numbered Z5-Z10. The Concourse is expandable, and what you see is the current Z East Concourse. The Z West Concourse proposes another 5 gates for the area. I would imagine if more gates were needed the additional 5 gates could be constructed fairly quickly. The concourse has always been "mysterious" to me, as I believe the only users of the concourse traditionally were F9 and AC. If I am not mistaken, the area has been used by UA as of recent for E175 flights. What a logistical nightmare that must be for UA...occupying every single gate on the concourse.

I would imagine a major priority of UA would be to have every single flight operate under the same terminal, but I guess that isn't the case.

I agree that we will likely never see a full buildout of every single tier. The proposed replacement for C/D was to contain 44 gates IIRC but I do not think that would be enough for UA's needs...especially if they would want to relocate all Star Alliance carriers to the replacement concourse. As it stands now, someone traveling VIE-IAD-ALB has to take a plane mate from the B gates to the IAB, re-clear security, and then take the APM or mobile lounge to the C/D concourse to make their connection, versus taking advantage of the CBP facility existing for transfers located underneath C/D. United occupies 50 gates IIRC on C/D today, not including their Express gates on A. I think the replacement should hold roughly 60-65 gates.

When UA wasn't so much focused on IAD (and it looked like they were going to downsize it for a while) I often wondered if they could just forget about C/D and shift everything over to A/B (given how quiet it is most of the time) but that is no longer possible.

USAirALB wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

The "interim" C/D concourse is like a roach at this point. It'll never die and will be here long after we are all gone.

To answer your question, frankly, no, I don't think so. But I do think a new concourse will be built, just probably not for another 10-15 years.

MWAA is currently in the process of replacing the C/D roof and HVAC system IIRC, and UA is currently building a new Polaris Lounge on the concourse. Apparently the lounge is being built with a "modular" design but unless it was built on wheels I can't see how a multi-story steel framed building is modular.

I honestly think the 2008 Financial Crisis killed immediate plans for the facility, plus I guess the merger-IAD's future seemed to be in a limbo for a while. Plans and renderings for the facility were drawn up (they all looked very nice), and MWAA demolished the old Concourse G to prepare for the concourse's construction.

C/D is really only busy during peak-periods, and it isn't like United has some grandiose plan to dramatically expand at Dulles, hence they have no business case to invest in a brand-new facility. It's a shame, because C/D is a window-less dark turd. It's been polished a couple of times but at the end of the day a turd is still a turd. Off the top of my head, C/D is probably the worst hub facility for a US airline today.

Remember, the long-range (and I mean long, like 50-60 years) plan for Dulles that was approved in the early 2000s is to build parallel concourses and a second landslide terminal as capacity warrants. The existing Z gates will be re-named A Gates. The current Concourse A/B will become the B gates. The C/D replacement "Tier 2" will become Concourse C. The plans call for an additional 2 Tiers (Tier 3, D Gates and Tier 4 E, Gates). After Tier 4 is complete an additional terminal will be built on the south end of the field and the AeroTrain system will connect all areas in a horseshoe. (https://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/file ... system.pdf)

The region is growing to be the third largest metro area in the US. Traffic at Dulles was really picking up the last couple of years, with several new carriers. I think the growth mode will resume in probably 2-4 years, and maybe a couple of years after that MWAA/UA will be willing to talk about their plans for C/D.

Sadly I agree with you on the timeline. I retire mid next decade and doubt I’ll see a replacement before I retire. I still hold out hope. I mean if LGA can get remodeled, and no longer be the worst facility in the nation, so can IAD.

Thanks for the link. Two things stand out about it.

1. I don’t ever envision IAD needing so many concourses. Not with DCA and BWI splitting the DMV traffic. That’s more terminal space then DEN (even with DEN adding the new gates)

2. The layout still assumes having to get to A for a portion of the Express ops from C/D. Whatever United terminal eventually builds should have all connections under one roof without having to take the train to connect. That’s just very inefficient, and to see that as a long term layout is disappointing. And I don’t think B is large enough to house UAL anymore so doing a terminal swap in the future isn’t going to work as a solution.

One area that a lot of people forget about Dulles is the Z Concourse (formerly T). The area has 5 gates currently, numbered Z5-Z10. The Concourse is expandable, and what you see is the current Z East Concourse. The Z West Concourse proposes another 5 gates for the area. I would imagine if more gates were needed the additional 5 gates could be constructed fairly quickly. The concourse has always been "mysterious" to me, as I believe the only users of the concourse traditionally were F9 and AC. If I am not mistaken, the area has been used by UA as of recent for E175 flights. What a logistical nightmare that must be for UA...occupying every single gate on the concourse.

I would imagine a major priority of UA would be to have every single flight operate under the same terminal, but I guess that isn't the case.

I agree that we will likely never see a full buildout of every single tier. The proposed replacement for C/D was to contain 44 gates IIRC but I do not think that would be enough for UA's needs...especially if they would want to relocate all Star Alliance carriers to the replacement concourse. As it stands now, someone traveling VIE-IAD-ALB has to take a plane mate from the B gates to the IAB, re-clear security, and then take the APM or mobile lounge to the C/D concourse to make their connection, versus taking advantage of the CBP facility existing for transfers located underneath C/D. United occupies 50 gates IIRC on C/D today, not including their Express gates on A. I think the replacement should hold roughly 60-65 gates.

When UA wasn't so much focused on IAD (and it looked like they were going to downsize it for a while) I often wondered if they could just forget about C/D and shift everything over to A/B (given how quiet it is most of the time) but that is no longer possible.

As told to me by the Chief pilot at the time, B was built for UAL, but due to bankruptcy UAL didn’t want to pay the lease rates that went along with the new terminal vs the trailer shed.

In more recent times, just prior to Covid, UAL was expanding IAD as MWAA was getting the costs down due to the DCA agreement and the state of Virginia helping out, and EWR being EWR. Someone on a quarterly earnings call even stated that IAD was the best performing hub as I recall. So the potential is there. Someday. It’s never going to be the size of DEN or IAH or ORD, but 300-400 flights day is possible.

USAirALB wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

The "interim" C/D concourse is like a roach at this point. It'll never die and will be here long after we are all gone.

To answer your question, frankly, no, I don't think so. But I do think a new concourse will be built, just probably not for another 10-15 years.

MWAA is currently in the process of replacing the C/D roof and HVAC system IIRC, and UA is currently building a new Polaris Lounge on the concourse. Apparently the lounge is being built with a "modular" design but unless it was built on wheels I can't see how a multi-story steel framed building is modular.

I honestly think the 2008 Financial Crisis killed immediate plans for the facility, plus I guess the merger-IAD's future seemed to be in a limbo for a while. Plans and renderings for the facility were drawn up (they all looked very nice), and MWAA demolished the old Concourse G to prepare for the concourse's construction.

C/D is really only busy during peak-periods, and it isn't like United has some grandiose plan to dramatically expand at Dulles, hence they have no business case to invest in a brand-new facility. It's a shame, because C/D is a window-less dark turd. It's been polished a couple of times but at the end of the day a turd is still a turd. Off the top of my head, C/D is probably the worst hub facility for a US airline today.

Remember, the long-range (and I mean long, like 50-60 years) plan for Dulles that was approved in the early 2000s is to build parallel concourses and a second landslide terminal as capacity warrants. The existing Z gates will be re-named A Gates. The current Concourse A/B will become the B gates. The C/D replacement "Tier 2" will become Concourse C. The plans call for an additional 2 Tiers (Tier 3, D Gates and Tier 4 E, Gates). After Tier 4 is complete an additional terminal will be built on the south end of the field and the AeroTrain system will connect all areas in a horseshoe. (https://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/file ... system.pdf)

The region is growing to be the third largest metro area in the US. Traffic at Dulles was really picking up the last couple of years, with several new carriers. I think the growth mode will resume in probably 2-4 years, and maybe a couple of years after that MWAA/UA will be willing to talk about their plans for C/D.

Sadly I agree with you on the timeline. I retire mid next decade and doubt I’ll see a replacement before I retire. I still hold out hope. I mean if LGA can get remodeled, and no longer be the worst facility in the nation, so can IAD.

Thanks for the link. Two things stand out about it.

1. I don’t ever envision IAD needing so many concourses. Not with DCA and BWI splitting the DMV traffic. That’s more terminal space then DEN (even with DEN adding the new gates)

2. The layout still assumes having to get to A for a portion of the Express ops from C/D. Whatever United terminal eventually builds should have all connections under one roof without having to take the train to connect. That’s just very inefficient, and to see that as a long term layout is disappointing. And I don’t think B is large enough to house UAL anymore so doing a terminal swap in the future isn’t going to work as a solution.

One area that a lot of people forget about Dulles is the Z Concourse (formerly T). The area has 5 gates currently, numbered Z5-Z10. The Concourse is expandable, and what you see is the current Z East Concourse. The Z West Concourse proposes another 5 gates for the area. I would imagine if more gates were needed the additional 5 gates could be constructed fairly quickly. The concourse has always been "mysterious" to me, as I believe the only users of the concourse traditionally were F9 and AC. If I am not mistaken, the area has been used by UA as of recent for E175 flights. What a logistical nightmare that must be for UA...occupying every single gate on the concourse.

I would imagine a major priority of UA would be to have every single flight operate under the same terminal, but I guess that isn't the case.

I agree that we will likely never see a full buildout of every single tier. The proposed replacement for C/D was to contain 44 gates IIRC but I do not think that would be enough for UA's needs...especially if they would want to relocate all Star Alliance carriers to the replacement concourse. As it stands now, someone traveling VIE-IAD-ALB has to take a plane mate from the B gates to the IAB, re-clear security, and then take the APM or mobile lounge to the C/D concourse to make their connection, versus taking advantage of the CBP facility existing for transfers located underneath C/D. United occupies 50 gates IIRC on C/D today, not including their Express gates on A. I think the replacement should hold roughly 60-65 gates.

When UA wasn't so much focused on IAD (and it looked like they were going to downsize it for a while) I often wondered if they could just forget about C/D and shift everything over to A/B (given how quiet it is most of the time) but that is no longer possible.

The old design for Tier 2 had a ton of widebody gates and it's own FIS clearly targeted at connecting international arrivals. I believe the stated goal was to get all of the Star Alliance partners under one roof (or at least the JV partners) and therefore eliminate the lengthy journey for someone doing that VIE-IAD-ALB trip.

The larger conclusion is that they cannot fit all of the desired facilities for the United hub under one roof with the IAD airfield plan: enough gates for the peak hub operation (mainline and RJ), enough sterile gates for both UA and partners, and operate efficiently. The main part of A/B has about 30-32 gates (counting lots of the widebody 'double' gates as one); the old Tier 2 plan called for 44 gates, which is about the most you're going to fit in any linear design.

Likewise, the development of a new Tier 2 addresses two weaknesses of the current design (e.g. gates on top of the C-gates aerotrain, plus extending the other end to the D-gates), plus the opportunity to redevelop the low-A gates to find another solution for regional jets, which avoids the painfully circuitous connections up, up, down, down escalators to get to the Aerotrain. In other words, you can turn that investment into an asset rather than a liability.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

As told to me by the Chief pilot at the time, B was built for UAL, but due to bankruptcy UAL didn’t want to pay the lease rates that went along with the new terminal vs the trailer shed.

Not saying you are wrong or you did not hear that, but I fail to see how that would have been the case. The Concourse was evidently designed as an O/D non-hub operation. I doubt UA would have taken the space without a proper FIS facility for connections like they have now.

blockski wrote:

The old design for Tier 2 had a ton of widebody gates and it's own FIS clearly targeted at connecting international arrivals. I believe the stated goal was to get all of the Star Alliance partners under one roof (or at least the JV partners) and therefore eliminate the lengthy journey for someone doing that VIE-IAD-ALB trip.

The larger conclusion is that they cannot fit all of the desired facilities for the United hub under one roof with the IAD airfield plan: enough gates for the peak hub operation (mainline and RJ), enough sterile gates for both UA and partners, and operate efficiently. The main part of A/B has about 30-32 gates (counting lots of the widebody 'double' gates as one); the old Tier 2 plan called for 44 gates, which is about the most you're going to fit in any linear design.

Likewise, the development of a new Tier 2 addresses two weaknesses of the current design (e.g. gates on top of the C-gates aerotrain, plus extending the other end to the D-gates), plus the opportunity to redevelop the low-A gates to find another solution for regional jets, which avoids the painfully circuitous connections up, up, down, down escalators to get to the Aerotrain. In other words, you can turn that investment into an asset rather than a liability.

What do you propose occurs to the RJ gates then? Even if you redevelop the low-A gates into a modern RJ facility (CLT E Gates, PHL F Gates, etc) you still will have to make a connection via the Aerotrain. The only benefit at that point would be the walk (personally I have never found it troublesome) from the current C station to the C concourse would be reduced.

With the closure of the SLC E Concourse, IAD probably has the nastiest RJ facility in the US.

USAirALB wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

As told to me by the Chief pilot at the time, B was built for UAL, but due to bankruptcy UAL didn’t want to pay the lease rates that went along with the new terminal vs the trailer shed.

Not saying you are wrong or you did not hear that, but I fail to see how that would have been the case. The Concourse was evidently designed as an O/D non-hub operation. I doubt UA would have taken the space without a proper FIS facility for connections like they have now.

blockski wrote:

With the closure of the SLC E Concourse, IAD probably has the nastiest RJ facility in the US.

It's definitely near the bottom. MIA's RJ facility comes to mind as one that may give IAD a run for its money but there's not many others.

USAirALB wrote:

One area that a lot of people forget about Dulles is the Z Concourse (formerly T). The area has 5 gates currently, numbered Z5-Z10. The Concourse is expandable, and what you see is the current Z East Concourse. The Z West Concourse proposes another 5 gates for the area. I would imagine if more gates were needed the additional 5 gates could be constructed fairly quickly. The concourse has always been "mysterious" to me, as I believe the only users of the concourse traditionally were F9 and AC. If I am not mistaken, the area has been used by UA as of recent for E175 flights. What a logistical nightmare that must be for UA...occupying every single gate on the concourse.

I haven't forgotten about it. I do try though. Those used to be the USAirways gates post merger with America West. No amenities except for the Dunkin Donuts, not enough seats, and very dull/drab.

USAirALB wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

As told to me by the Chief pilot at the time, B was built for UAL, but due to bankruptcy UAL didn’t want to pay the lease rates that went along with the new terminal vs the trailer shed.

Not saying you are wrong or you did not hear that, but I fail to see how that would have been the case. The Concourse was evidently designed as an O/D non-hub operation. I doubt UA would have taken the space without a proper FIS facility for connections like they have now.

blockski wrote:

The old design for Tier 2 had a ton of widebody gates and it's own FIS clearly targeted at connecting international arrivals. I believe the stated goal was to get all of the Star Alliance partners under one roof (or at least the JV partners) and therefore eliminate the lengthy journey for someone doing that VIE-IAD-ALB trip.

The larger conclusion is that they cannot fit all of the desired facilities for the United hub under one roof with the IAD airfield plan: enough gates for the peak hub operation (mainline and RJ), enough sterile gates for both UA and partners, and operate efficiently. The main part of A/B has about 30-32 gates (counting lots of the widebody 'double' gates as one); the old Tier 2 plan called for 44 gates, which is about the most you're going to fit in any linear design.

Likewise, the development of a new Tier 2 addresses two weaknesses of the current design (e.g. gates on top of the C-gates aerotrain, plus extending the other end to the D-gates), plus the opportunity to redevelop the low-A gates to find another solution for regional jets, which avoids the painfully circuitous connections up, up, down, down escalators to get to the Aerotrain. In other words, you can turn that investment into an asset rather than a liability.

What do you propose occurs to the RJ gates then? Even if you redevelop the low-A gates into a modern RJ facility (CLT E Gates, PHL F Gates, etc) you still will have to make a connection via the Aerotrain. The only benefit at that point would be the walk (personally I have never found it troublesome) from the current C station to the C concourse would be reduced.

With the closure of the SLC E Concourse, IAD probably has the nastiest RJ facility in the US.

Considering that the C/D FIS is on the ramp level, I would assume it would have had the same set up at B.

And as far as where would the RJ’s go, incorporate them into the new terminal for UAL, might have to add a perpendicular wing off the main concourse (so it looks like l____ or l____l to get the number of gates needed. But it would eliminate the A gates ( and that gives MWAA room to convert that area to mainline gates like Denver is doing to Concourse B) and the need for connecting passengers to get on a train to connect.

USAirALB wrote:

blockski wrote:

The old design for Tier 2 had a ton of widebody gates and it's own FIS clearly targeted at connecting international arrivals. I believe the stated goal was to get all of the Star Alliance partners under one roof (or at least the JV partners) and therefore eliminate the lengthy journey for someone doing that VIE-IAD-ALB trip.

The larger conclusion is that they cannot fit all of the desired facilities for the United hub under one roof with the IAD airfield plan: enough gates for the peak hub operation (mainline and RJ), enough sterile gates for both UA and partners, and operate efficiently. The main part of A/B has about 30-32 gates (counting lots of the widebody 'double' gates as one); the old Tier 2 plan called for 44 gates, which is about the most you're going to fit in any linear design.

Likewise, the development of a new Tier 2 addresses two weaknesses of the current design (e.g. gates on top of the C-gates aerotrain, plus extending the other end to the D-gates), plus the opportunity to redevelop the low-A gates to find another solution for regional jets, which avoids the painfully circuitous connections up, up, down, down escalators to get to the Aerotrain. In other words, you can turn that investment into an asset rather than a liability.

What do you propose occurs to the RJ gates then? Even if you redevelop the low-A gates into a modern RJ facility (CLT E Gates, PHL F Gates, etc) you still will have to make a connection via the Aerotrain. The only benefit at that point would be the walk (personally I have never found it troublesome) from the current C station to the C concourse would be reduced.

With the closure of the SLC E Concourse, IAD probably has the nastiest RJ facility in the US.

The long-term plan for the low-A gates would be to demolish and rebuild as mainline gates (just like the B-west extension built about a decade ago). Pre-covid, IAD was basically at capacity in terms of gates during the evening bank for international departures and arrivals; they had talked about adding more gates connected to the sterile corridors.

As far as redesigning the Tier 2 concept, it's possible to add some piers for RJs, but there are some technical hurdles with phasing (e.g. the piers would need to extend to the north, where the existing C/D is, requiring some other transition plan) and that doesn't solve the financial conundrum with Tier 2. It's a massive expense, dependent on UA's willingness to run enough traffic through there to make it work. One strategy would be to try to enable the project to happen incrementally, but the transition from C/D to a new Tier 2 makes that hard. There's also the question of UA's RJ fleet strategy and what kind of facilities they need/want (e.g. contact gates vs. the current setup).

What I'd imagine they could do would be something like this:

1. Build out the rest of the Z gates in a way that can absorb a lot of the RJ needs
2. Demolish the low-A gates, replace with mainline gates. UA can move in here as a 'swing' space from parts of C/D - including for larger RJ flying
3. Close portions of C/D as needed to build Tier 2 in phases (e.g. build the new 'C' first, then 'D' later to ease the cost)

Back to the original question about the potential for an infrastructure bill windfall, perhaps that changes the calculus in a way that allows MWAA to just take on the full expense without a large financial penalty, but I'm not sure that's going to be the focus of the bill (if and when it comes to fruition).

The Washington Post has a piece on the impending demise of Gate 35X on April 20, and how it got the reputation it did:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... story.html

“I think that 35X became a collective legend of perceived misery that wasn’t really there,” says Ostrower. It was a true First-World problem. The bus ride alone, Ostrower says, provided the “best tour of aviation in the U.S., which is usually seen above the wing. You’re eight or 10 feet above the ground and you’re looking out the window down on everything going on underneath you, like a swarm of busy ants trying to make the colony run. [Gate 35X] gets you at the same level. There’s the smell of jet fuel, and you get to watch the people, the rampers, who make aviation happen. It was always a beautiful interaction — the closeness you could have with understanding the complexity of the whole aviation experience.”