Welcome to the DC Airports Thread for 2021. This is for IAD, BWI, and DCA.

Continue discussions from the 2020 thread:
viewtopic.php?t=1437923

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?

Regarding BWI, is there any update on Southwest's maintenance hangar? I thought it was supposed to be nearing completion by now but I don't even think it's been started yet.
The Concourse A six-gate extension looks to be in the final stages. I think the next step after that is to temporarily close A1-A5 to work on the baggage sorting facility.

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?

No, they're not done yet.

The Washington Post had an article on this on Dec. 31: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/tr ... story.html

They expect the new concourse to open in July, replacing Gate 35X. The new security checkpoints won't open until the "third quarter of 2021," so National Hall will remain open pre-security until then.

BWI's baggage sorting facility can come none too soon.

I flew threw there over Christmas. Took well over a half hour for our bags to arrive on the carousel (which has been our typical experience from when we lived there). Compare that to DEN, our bags were already on the carousel when we got there.

UA announced IAD-BGI today, beginning in December 2021. I'm pretty sure this is the first time anyone has tried IAD-BGI.

UA also added seasonal MYR/ECP out of IAD. WN will also be starting Saturday-only DCA-ECP alongside DCA-JAX/PNS on top of their BWI service.

Meanwhile the UA transatlantic schedule from IAD in March currently includes LHR, BRU, ZRH, FRA, and MUC. The April schedule is yet to be released but I doubt much will change. I think there's a decent chance CDG/AMS may come back over the summer but we will have to see.

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?

Nope. Not even close. Was there wednesday for a trip and the screening facility has a long way to go. The new pier however looks basically done from the outside perspective.

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.

I tend to agree. Its very odd that given the numbering of the B pier and A piers that the C area encompasses two piers (currently with separate security). But the gates are all numbered sequentially. You might arrive at what is the "C" area, but it would still be gate 37.

In any event, I'm looking forward to the new concourse. 35X was such a hell-hole.

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?

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?

That's my understanding; the new pier will be exclusively for American Eagle flights including the E75s. Can't wait to be rid of Gate 35X!

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.

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?

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.

Seems like it's the same frame that was there Monday night when I arrived at IAD around 11pm. One A350 was being deiced out on the west ramp, and there was a second one at the gate.

Are there available slots at DCA now due to the Covid cut back on flights?

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.

Will B6 ever add JFK out of DCA on the A220?

airlineworker wrote:

Are there available slots at DCA now due to the Covid cut back on flights?

Slot usage rules are still protected for the time being. I think I read through October 2021 but not 100% sure.

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.

No - BA is doing a weird aircraft rotation with their IAD flights - the aircraft sits a whole day at IAD. Basically, the Monday arrival is the Tuesday departure and so on. Not sure why, but clearly they don't need the utilization and the fees at IAD must be cheaper than LHR for the aircraft to sit like that!

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.

It seems that DCA’s problem is that they need to pick a good numbering system and have a terminal system that works. The fact that a terminal B/C exists is probably more confusing to the average Joe than the numbering pattern. So why not change to A, B, C, D, and E? Then you could do a more straightforward numbering system, A#, B#, etc. If people are really averse to this, they could use a numbering system without letters giving each terminal 1-19, 20-39, 40-59, 60-79, and 80-99. This would be weird, though, because it kinda goes against the American standard, as well as what’s going on in just about everyone of AA’s hubs.

b777900, JetBlue's DCA to JFK was mainly for people looking for cheaper airfare out of JFK to primarily international destinations. There was almost no local O&D traffic which tanked the route (The O&D flies DCA-LGA).

Thoughts on whether COVID has killed the chance for a deal for a new IAD C/D somewhere around 2024 when United's current leases expire? Somehow, I get the uneasy feeling that we're in for another decade of UA and MWAA kicking the can down the road on replacing what I refer to as the 'Ted Shed and ending the train ride to nowhere.

Highly unlikely that a new C/D are built in the foreseeable future but I’m not saying that because of COVID.

UA simply hasn’t expressed an interest as of recent (publicly at least) in a new facility, and they are building and investing in a brand new Polaris Lounge in the present concourse, which would make little sense if they were thinking about a new C/D.

It’s a shame because the proposed C/D replacement was quite lovely and connecting between UA RJ flights on A and flights on C/D is quite a pain.

I will say that a lot of people complain about the walk from the train to the gates but it doesn’t bother me nor do I think it’s that long.

The C/D replacement wasn't going to happen even before COVID. Now it's really not going to happen. The only work being done pre-COVID was to build an addition to C/D for a Polaris lounge. At this point, I have zero expectations of seeing any movement on a replacement concourse for the remainder of the decade.

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?

Earlier in the pandemic KLM did this -- a flight would come in and use the same crew to leave the next evening. Plane was parked at gate.

There was a post on FlyerTalk I believe how I guess someone spoke with the UA IAD Managing Director who stated the lounge is being designed so it can be used at the new C/D replacement as well...don't know how that is possible with a steel frame building addition, unless MWAA secretly added a pair of wheels underneath the building's structure. I know they are also replacing all of the air conditioning units on the concourse roof at present as well.

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.

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.

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.

Some reading between the lines on twitter - nothing too public. This exchange involves someone who works for MWAA: https://twitter.com/ByERussell/status/1 ... 2256849920

Anyway, lots of the renderings suggest they're keeping regular sequential gate numbers, but I suspect they're going to change something else to help make the whole experience more legible.

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.

Or, they could just call it all Terminal B and be done with it. At the same time, they have a lot of other stuff (parking garages, etc) using the A/B/C nomenclature.

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.

Short video giving a sense of the new ticketing level enclosure at DCA as they work to secure the area below:

https://twitter.com/AdamTuss/status/1359554997034377222

It's glass at the lower level and a decorative mesh above, presumably for air flow reasons.

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?

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?

AirTran used to do this in spokes that had nonstops to places other than Atlanta and Orlando.

Such as Akron/Canton (CAK) and Newport News/Williamsburg (PHF). Both had nonstops to LGA and BOS, and they would sell a connection BOS-PHF-MCO or LGA-CAK-ATL.

@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.

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.

The original 1941 Terminal is indeed a historic landmark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washingto ... angar_Line

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.

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?

Not United, but one time American offered me an itinerary from DCA-ORD connecting in Buffalo. It just showed up on their website next to the 'normal' nonstop flights. I was really temped to book it, but I went with a boring nonstop because it was winter and I wanted to minimize the risk of weather-related delays or missed connections.

EDIT: As a matter of fact, I just checked now and American/United offer a few weird connections on that itinerary. I'm seeing them on American via Charleston, SC, Memphis, Louisville, Atlanta, Norfolk. United is giving me connections through Asheville, NC, Charlotte, Dayton, Columbus, Huntsville AL, etc. All just a few results down from the normal flights via major hubs or nonstop. Will have to try one next time I need to get to Chicago.

Its actually quite common. DCA-ORD has lots of connection options. One year I was short on segments and DCA-ORD could be flown DCA-CMH-ORD for about the same price.

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.

Thanks. I knew the lobby area was considered a historic landmark but I was unsure if the Banjo area was included.

I recognize that I may be in the minority, but I wouldn't have a problem with them knocking down the Banjo and replacing it with a modern pier. It would be great if the historic lobby area could actually be put to use, maybe as some sort of secure, sterile connector between B/C and a hypothetical Banjo replacement.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Those renderings are bits of both.

As part of the currently under construction concourse, they evaluated alternatives to add a new concourse next to the historic terminal, but rejected that idea for a variety of fairly obvious reasons.

The airport has had a longstanding 'plan' that's more of a loose aspiration to replace the business end of terminal A - it dates back decades. That's stalled for a variety of reasons, as I understand it.

You can see an outline of a concept here (page 5) in the ALP: https://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/file ... 0216v2.pdf

The big benefits of such a plan would be to increase the passenger capacity of terminal A (more bag claims, larger holdrooms, more concessions, better curb use for pickup/drop off, more space in general). As things stood pre-pandemic, A was packed to the gills. It wouldn't yield a net increase in gates, but like the 35X replacement, it could yield a net increase in overall capacity.

But just like the 35X replacement, you'd need the key airlines to sign off on it. Right now, that's Southwest, and they seem perfectly fine with the incremental improvements (like the new security lanes) at a low cost, rather than agree to higher rent for a new terminal - particularly when they don't see the need for adding a lounge or something like that.

Maybe that all changes in the future; either Southwest decides they want (and will pay for) a new facility, or there's a big reshuffling of gates with a different airline using Terminal A, one willing to pay the higher rents/fees for a revamped terminal.

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.

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?

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.

It's about time they finally came here. I'm still hoping for one in the IAD A/B concourse. Even with all of the lounges at IAD, it still never seems like there's enough space. I'm glad Amex is picking up their expansion, because their lounge network has been so limited for so many years. The DC area is pretty abundant with high value flyers who can access a Centurion Lounge, so it's a long time coming.

I suppose they wanted to wait until the National Hall project all gates were accessible rather than put the lounge somewhere pre-security like the one in LGA.

I love Centurion Lounges, and I generally prefer to connect over an airport that has one (provided the price is right) although I don't know how often I will use the one at DCA. I rarely check bags and from my apartment in DC, I am only 30 minutes away by Metro, including walking time to the station from my house. I regularly show up at the airport just as boarding is about to begin (thanks to TSA Pre/Clear). The ability to do that at DCA is more important to me than having access to a lounge. I will say that with that I don't know if my ability to do that will change with the new central security checkpoints, but still.

Where this will really shine is during IRROPS when every single flight is delayed and there is no seating anywhere (at the gate or at a restaurant) on the concourse. The ability to go to the CL then will be valuable.

I'm looking forward to the new local restaurants opening on the new concourse...I love Founding Farmers and Timber Pizza.

I don't see a CL coming to IAD. Most high-value flyers are more than likely flying UA (and there is no room to put a CL on C/D IIRC) and there is already a plethora of Priority Pass lounges available. I love the TK Lounge, and I have only had capacity access issues there once. I do think the old AA Admirals Club is available for use though, so who knows.

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.

How did the new north pier then get approved? Is the assumption that hard stand was equal to gates?

washingtonflyer wrote:

How did the new north pier then get approved? Is the assumption that hard stand was equal to gates?

Yes - gate 35X had 14 hard stands; the new concourse will have 14 jetbridge gates.

The capacity expansion comes from enabling larger planes and more efficient use of the facilities.

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.

I think you can expand the terminal size without expanding the number of slots. They're connected but not totally dependent upon each other. In IRROPS situations, I've seen a lot of aircraft have to hold down by the GA facility or over by Commuter World while waiting for a gate to free up. I'm sure a new pier could be added such that aircraft don't have to wait 30 or 45 minutes for a gate to open up. As it is, airlines might like a new terminal as they have to be towed away each night for RON parking.

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

FLY

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?

I don't actually know the answer to the questions, but one possible input is that that pier made C/D at Dulles look like HKG. It was a real hole, and that was from my impressions as a child.