Yeastbeast wrote:

Initial destinations out of BLI for WN are Oakland and Vegas. Personally, I was hoping for something eastbound. https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/l ... 24673.html

Thanks for this. I, too, was hoping for something eastbound, like DEN. I guess WN feels compelled to stay "safe" with the S and SE flow from the area.

Could Snohomish County’s two largest airports be expanded? (Everett Herald, 6/18/2021)
A study explores expanding runways at Paine Field and Arlington Municipal to relieve a coming crunch.

The article says the PSRC concludes that Paine Field probably can't add new runways but can increase its existing passenger service, while Arlington Municipal Airport can expand to one or two 9,000-foot runways that can handle Hawaii/East Coast flights.

CowAnon wrote:

Could Snohomish County’s two largest airports be expanded? (Everett Herald, 6/18/2021)
A study explores expanding runways at Paine Field and Arlington Municipal to relieve a coming crunch.

The article says the PSRC concludes that Paine Field probably can't add new runways but can increase its existing passenger service, while Arlington Municipal Airport can expand to one or two 9,000-foot runways that can handle Hawaii/East Coast flights.

The GA pilot in me who likes to rent planes when on vacation in SEA (where I grew up) isn't too happy about the idea of AWO possibly expanding...but of course that's only for my own selfish reasons.

I think the South Sound needs a commercial airport to supplement SEA, like PAE in Snohomish County. Does Arlington airport have a high enough airport surrounding it to support consistent passenger service? Maybe by 2050.

Can Tacoma Narrows Airport ever function commercially? lol

Western727 wrote:

Yeastbeast wrote:

Initial destinations out of BLI for WN are Oakland and Vegas. Personally, I was hoping for something eastbound. https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/l ... 24673.html

Thanks for this. I, too, was hoping for something eastbound, like DEN. I guess WN feels compelled to stay "safe" with the S and SE flow from the area.

I was hoping for Boise, Bozeman, and Spokane, or even a new station at Missoula. They're missing out on untapped East-West traffic and lucrative market in booming towns with lots of travel oriented people.

Arlington would require a new four lane freeway spur off of I-5, south of 531 which currently appears to be at capacity, and looks like it gets cut off. I wonder what the pros and cons of airports in the river valleys like BFI and AWO versus on the ridge like SEA and PAE?

Isn't Arlington in the mix for potential location for the new commercial airport location initiative? I don't know how COVID affected all that, but was thinking Bremerton made the most sense site-wise although the infrastructure to get people over there would be daunting.

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Can Tacoma Narrows Airport ever function commercially? lol

I did many, many moons ago with Air West and a few small commuters 40+ years ago.

It will be interesting if anything gets developed within the next decade or so.

sprxUSA wrote:

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Can Tacoma Narrows Airport ever function commercially? lol

I did many, many moons ago with Air West and a few small commuters 40+ years ago.

Indeed, a 1972 timetable on departedflights.com shows two weekday flights, one to SEA and one to Olympia, 15 minutes each. Must have been an F-27 or similar. Wow.

cschleic wrote:

sprxUSA wrote:

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Can Tacoma Narrows Airport ever function commercially? lol

I did many, many moons ago with Air West and a few small commuters 40+ years ago.

Indeed, a 1972 timetable on departedflights.com shows two weekday flights, one to SEA and one to Olympia, 15 minutes each. Must have been an F-27 or similar. Wow.

That flight was a milk run. It also went to Aberdeen, Astoria, and Coos Bay/North Bend and other stops. It was an F-27. Air West served BFI instead of SEA until about 1971.

BoeingGuy wrote:

cschleic wrote:

sprxUSA wrote:

I did many, many moons ago with Air West and a few small commuters 40+ years ago.

Indeed, a 1972 timetable on departedflights.com shows two weekday flights, one to SEA and one to Olympia, 15 minutes each. Must have been an F-27 or similar. Wow.

That flight was a milk run. It also went to Aberdeen, Astoria, and Coos Bay/North Bend and other stops. It was an F-27. Air West served BFI instead of SEA until about 1971.

Interesting about BFI. Those milk runs were an avgeek's dream. Hughes Airwest used to have those 7 stop flights between Seattle and southern California or Arizona.

wedgetail737 wrote:

It will be interesting if anything gets developed within the next decade or so.

Paine Field took a decade to develop a very low level of service (capacity equal to 2.5% of regional volume) at an airport that already had an amply-sized runway.

I hold zero expectation of major expansion of any airport within a decade except SeaTac.

I expect moderate expansion at Paine Field will start to be discussed in the next 2-3 years. It might be possible by the early 2030's to increase passenger capacity there by about 4X by expanding the existing terminal to replace a handful of adjacent buildings, but that amounts to only 2-3 years of expected regional demand growth.

Meanwhile, SeaTac is going to continue projects to increase their capacity (currently budgeted at nearly $700 million per year), but according to their long term master plan, they expect traffic growth to continue to occur basically as fast as they can make improvements, and delays will continue to occur. Their plan currently runs through 2034, and they have some further options to pursue past that time frame, but eventually they run out of room to re-arrange and optimize. Their master plan calls for a new north terminal to be added with 19 gates by 2027, but I'm not sure they're on pace for that (but concern over that is arguably mitigated by the setback COVID-19 hit the industry with).

I think we're more realistically looking at mid-2030's before a major 2nd airport is operational, if traffic growth continues at a high pace, and political support is strong.

iamlucky13 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

It will be interesting if anything gets developed within the next decade or so.

Paine Field took a decade to develop a very low level of service (capacity equal to 2.5% of regional volume) at an airport that already had an amply-sized runway.

I hold zero expectation of major expansion of any airport within a decade except SeaTac.

I expect moderate expansion at Paine Field will start to be discussed in the next 2-3 years. It might be possible by the early 2030's to increase passenger capacity there by about 4X by expanding the existing terminal to replace a handful of adjacent buildings, but that amounts to only 2-3 years of expected regional demand growth.

Meanwhile, SeaTac is going to continue projects to increase their capacity (currently budgeted at nearly $700 million per year), but according to their long term master plan, they expect traffic growth to continue to occur basically as fast as they can make improvements, and delays will continue to occur. Their plan currently runs through 2034, and they have some further options to pursue past that time frame, but eventually they run out of room to re-arrange and optimize. Their master plan calls for a new north terminal to be added with 19 gates by 2027, but I'm not sure they're on pace for that (but concern over that is arguably mitigated by the setback COVID-19 hit the industry with).

I think we're more realistically looking at mid-2030's before a major 2nd airport is operational, if traffic growth continues at a high pace, and political support is strong.

I had forgotten that SEA wants to extend the N-concourse.

wedgetail737 wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

It will be interesting if anything gets developed within the next decade or so.

Paine Field took a decade to develop a very low level of service (capacity equal to 2.5% of regional volume) at an airport that already had an amply-sized runway.

I hold zero expectation of major expansion of any airport within a decade except SeaTac.

I expect moderate expansion at Paine Field will start to be discussed in the next 2-3 years. It might be possible by the early 2030's to increase passenger capacity there by about 4X by expanding the existing terminal to replace a handful of adjacent buildings, but that amounts to only 2-3 years of expected regional demand growth.

Meanwhile, SeaTac is going to continue projects to increase their capacity (currently budgeted at nearly $700 million per year), but according to their long term master plan, they expect traffic growth to continue to occur basically as fast as they can make improvements, and delays will continue to occur. Their plan currently runs through 2034, and they have some further options to pursue past that time frame, but eventually they run out of room to re-arrange and optimize. Their master plan calls for a new north terminal to be added with 19 gates by 2027, but I'm not sure they're on pace for that (but concern over that is arguably mitigated by the setback COVID-19 hit the industry with).

I think we're more realistically looking at mid-2030's before a major 2nd airport is operational, if traffic growth continues at a high pace, and political support is strong.

I had forgotten that SEA wants to extend the N-concourse.

Options are limited due to space. Some crazy long term ideas: More landfill on the westside and move cargo there, freeing up east cargo for passenger use. I assume the cemetery land is off limits but don't know enough about that. Build new terminals over the entrance roadway, ala SFO's international terminal. Move the garage across the highway and a new terminal in its place, freeing up space west of it, or replace the garage with gates. It could be built over Pacific Highway. I know, a bazillion dollars and decades. But looking at aerial photos, there aren't a lot of options other than expanding other airports.

cschleic wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

Paine Field took a decade to develop a very low level of service (capacity equal to 2.5% of regional volume) at an airport that already had an amply-sized runway.

I hold zero expectation of major expansion of any airport within a decade except SeaTac.

I expect moderate expansion at Paine Field will start to be discussed in the next 2-3 years. It might be possible by the early 2030's to increase passenger capacity there by about 4X by expanding the existing terminal to replace a handful of adjacent buildings, but that amounts to only 2-3 years of expected regional demand growth.

Meanwhile, SeaTac is going to continue projects to increase their capacity (currently budgeted at nearly $700 million per year), but according to their long term master plan, they expect traffic growth to continue to occur basically as fast as they can make improvements, and delays will continue to occur. Their plan currently runs through 2034, and they have some further options to pursue past that time frame, but eventually they run out of room to re-arrange and optimize. Their master plan calls for a new north terminal to be added with 19 gates by 2027, but I'm not sure they're on pace for that (but concern over that is arguably mitigated by the setback COVID-19 hit the industry with).

I think we're more realistically looking at mid-2030's before a major 2nd airport is operational, if traffic growth continues at a high pace, and political support is strong.

I had forgotten that SEA wants to extend the N-concourse.

Options are limited due to space. Some crazy long term ideas: More landfill on the westside and move cargo there, freeing up east cargo for passenger use. I assume the cemetery land is off limits but don't know enough about that. Build new terminals over the entrance roadway, ala SFO's international terminal. Move the garage across the highway and a new terminal in its place, freeing up space west of it, or replace the garage with gates. It could be built over Pacific Highway. I know, a bazillion dollars and decades. But looking at aerial photos, there aren't a lot of options other than expanding other airports.

Moving the garage is a non-starter. Expansion of north satellite or new north terminal will never get done by2027, maybe 2030 if we're lucky. Buying more land on the west side and moving cargo over there is a possibility but again that's really long-term. Look how long it took for the 3rd runway

I like the notion of relocating the JBLM base to central or eastern Washington, as mentioned in a news link on the first page. With the freed-up land you could actually place a behemoth DEN or DFW-sized airport with 8 runways that could replace Sea-Tac on a fraction of JBLM's property. Politically the giant airport is probably a non-starter, but I imagine you could still get the airport for passenger service and maybe add another runway, then let the metropolitan area grow into the rest of the vacated space.

With the way things are going at Sea-Tac, it sounds like Paine Field, Arlington, and JBLM will all be needed.

How about Renton when 737 production ends 2035 to 2040?

DenverTed wrote:

How about Renton when 737 production ends 2035 to 2040?

RNT is 5 miles from SEA.

Chugach wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

How about Renton when 737 production ends 2035 to 2040?

RNT is 5 miles from SEA.

Further, that's a big assumption Boeing is just going to vacate all Renton facilities.

jbs2886 wrote:

Chugach wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

How about Renton when 737 production ends 2035 to 2040?

RNT is 5 miles from SEA.

Further, that's a big assumption Boeing is just going to vacate all Renton facilities.

And there is a less than zero chance the locals would approve of commercial service there - the mount of expansion they'd have to do to make RNT feasible for scheduled traffic is unthinkable.

jbs2886 wrote:

Chugach wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

How about Renton when 737 production ends 2035 to 2040?

RNT is 5 miles from SEA.

Further, that's a big assumption Boeing is just going to vacate all Renton facilities.

There’s a bigger problem than those. The runway is 5300 feet long. No room to expand.

jbs2886 wrote:

Chugach wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

How about Renton when 737 production ends 2035 to 2040?

RNT is 5 miles from SEA.

Further, that's a big assumption Boeing is just going to vacate all Renton facilities.

I think they will leave when 737 production ends, and head for greener pastures. That said maybe Renton doesn't do much for commercial traffic.
Now if Boeing leaves PAE, they could build two parallel runways and a terminal in the middle. Of course the neighbors don't want the noise, but that pretty much rules out any new airport in western WA for that matter.

ER757 wrote:

cschleic wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I had forgotten that SEA wants to extend the N-concourse.

Options are limited due to space. Some crazy long term ideas: More landfill on the westside and move cargo there, freeing up east cargo for passenger use. I assume the cemetery land is off limits but don't know enough about that. Build new terminals over the entrance roadway, ala SFO's international terminal. Move the garage across the highway and a new terminal in its place, freeing up space west of it, or replace the garage with gates. It could be built over Pacific Highway. I know, a bazillion dollars and decades. But looking at aerial photos, there aren't a lot of options other than expanding other airports.

Moving the garage is a non-starter. Expansion of north satellite or new north terminal will never get done by2027, maybe 2030 if we're lucky. Buying more land on the west side and moving cargo over there is a possibility but again that's really long-term. Look how long it took for the 3rd runway

The SEA plan for approximately the 2027 time frame is most easily understood from the map of projects on pages 28 and 29 of this PDF:

https://www.portseattle.org/sites/defau ... ummary.pdf

A brief summary, not including projects already in work, like the International Arrivals Facility and North Satellite modernization:

* Multiple taxiway changes for more efficient and safer ground movements
* Consolidation of north cargo area and RON area
* Add / relocate cargo warehouses to nearby offsite.
* Airport Expressway road re-alignment
* 2nd Terminal Landside - Ticketing area, parking, and transit station to east of re-aligned road (current site of Doug Fox parking and the cell phone lot)
* 2nd Terminal Airside - 19 gates to west of re-aligned road, connected to ticketing by pedestrian bridge
* Hardstands in area between North Satellite and re-aligned road (served by recently completed concourse D annex?)
* Increased fuel tank farm capacity.
* Add 2nd parking level to the charter and cruise line bus lot.
* Relocation of facilities impacted by the above construction (fire department, lavatory truck dump, deicing storage, etc), some of it to the west side of the airfield, near the FAA TRACON center.

These projects are currently in the environmental review phase. Next step would be detailed design, followed by construction. If I understand their budget correctly, they're planning to moderately increase spending compared to the current pace that the IAF and North Satellite projects are consuming money.

On Page 25, there is a map showing some potential additional options to complete in the 2034 time frame:

* Add end-around taxiways to avoid crossing runways
* Further consolidate north cargo area for "air freight" (passenger airline cargo?)
* Create a new South Aviation Support Area (south of the tank farm) for "integrator freight" (Fed Ex, etc?)
* Move maintenance hangars to South Aviation Support Area
* Extend 2nd terminal further into current north cargo area
* Extend international terminal further into current maintenance hangar area

Interestingly, Port of Seattle's master plan was based on reaching 25 million passenger enplanements by 2024. They actually hit that level in 2019 (they started scoping the plan in 2014, and growth accelerated).

The Puget Sound Regional Council report is based on a growth rate of only 2.6% through 2050, although in recent years, SEA traffic has grown around 4%. Yet even the PSRC report number would have SEA only meeting about 60% of regional demand. Hence why they're talking about a desire to supplement SEA with 2-3 additional runways in the region providing commercial service.

iamlucky13 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

cschleic wrote:

Options are limited due to space. Some crazy long term ideas: More landfill on the westside and move cargo there, freeing up east cargo for passenger use. I assume the cemetery land is off limits but don't know enough about that. Build new terminals over the entrance roadway, ala SFO's international terminal. Move the garage across the highway and a new terminal in its place, freeing up space west of it, or replace the garage with gates. It could be built over Pacific Highway. I know, a bazillion dollars and decades. But looking at aerial photos, there aren't a lot of options other than expanding other airports.

Moving the garage is a non-starter. Expansion of north satellite or new north terminal will never get done by2027, maybe 2030 if we're lucky. Buying more land on the west side and moving cargo over there is a possibility but again that's really long-term. Look how long it took for the 3rd runway

The SEA plan for approximately the 2027 time frame is most easily understood from the map of projects on pages 28 and 29 of this PDF:

https://www.portseattle.org/sites/defau ... ummary.pdf

A brief summary, not including projects already in work, like the International Arrivals Facility and North Satellite modernization:

* Multiple taxiway changes for more efficient and safer ground movements
* Consolidation of north cargo area and RON area
* Add / relocate cargo warehouses to nearby offsite.
* Airport Expressway road re-alignment
* 2nd Terminal Landside - Ticketing area, parking, and transit station to east of re-aligned road (current site of Doug Fox parking and the cell phone lot)
* 2nd Terminal Airside - 19 gates to west of re-aligned road, connected to ticketing by pedestrian bridge
* Hardstands in area between North Satellite and re-aligned road (served by recently completed concourse D annex?)
* Increased fuel tank farm capacity.
* Add 2nd parking level to the charter and cruise line bus lot.
* Relocation of facilities impacted by the above construction (fire department, lavatory truck dump, deicing storage, etc), some of it to the west side of the airfield, near the FAA TRACON center.

These projects are currently in the environmental review phase. Next step would be detailed design, followed by construction. If I understand their budget correctly, they're planning to moderately increase spending compared to the current pace that the IAF and North Satellite projects are consuming money.

On Page 25, there is a map showing some potential additional options to complete in the 2034 time frame:

* Add end-around taxiways to avoid crossing runways
* Further consolidate north cargo area for "air freight" (passenger airline cargo?)
* Create a new South Aviation Support Area (south of the tank farm) for "integrator freight" (Fed Ex, etc?)
* Move maintenance hangars to South Aviation Support Area
* Extend 2nd terminal further into current north cargo area
* Extend international terminal further into current maintenance hangar area

Interestingly, Port of Seattle's master plan was based on reaching 25 million passenger enplanements by 2024. They actually hit that level in 2019 (they started scoping the plan in 2014, and growth accelerated).

The Puget Sound Regional Council report is based on a growth rate of only 2.6% through 2050, although in recent years, SEA traffic has grown around 4%. Yet even the PSRC report number would have SEA only meeting about 60% of regional demand. Hence why they're talking about a desire to supplement SEA with 2-3 additional runways in the region providing commercial service.

Will they have the food court open by 2027 is the bigger question. Can the road system handle a bigger airport? The access road and the freeway network leading up to it? I think shifting as much passenger and freight traffic out of SEA is a better solution.
It looks to me like they need to rethink the overall circulation concept. Maybe connect the north concourse to the terminal and get rid of that underground train loop. Build a high capacity linear train route from the south end of A, north to the new terminal and the rental car facility, with five or six stops.

DenverTed wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Moving the garage is a non-starter. Expansion of north satellite or new north terminal will never get done by2027, maybe 2030 if we're lucky. Buying more land on the west side and moving cargo over there is a possibility but again that's really long-term. Look how long it took for the 3rd runway

The SEA plan for approximately the 2027 time frame is most easily understood from the map of projects on pages 28 and 29 of this PDF:

https://www.portseattle.org/sites/defau ... ummary.pdf

A brief summary, not including projects already in work, like the International Arrivals Facility and North Satellite modernization:

* Multiple taxiway changes for more efficient and safer ground movements
* Consolidation of north cargo area and RON area
* Add / relocate cargo warehouses to nearby offsite.
* Airport Expressway road re-alignment
* 2nd Terminal Landside - Ticketing area, parking, and transit station to east of re-aligned road (current site of Doug Fox parking and the cell phone lot)
* 2nd Terminal Airside - 19 gates to west of re-aligned road, connected to ticketing by pedestrian bridge
* Hardstands in area between North Satellite and re-aligned road (served by recently completed concourse D annex?)
* Increased fuel tank farm capacity.
* Add 2nd parking level to the charter and cruise line bus lot.
* Relocation of facilities impacted by the above construction (fire department, lavatory truck dump, deicing storage, etc), some of it to the west side of the airfield, near the FAA TRACON center.

These projects are currently in the environmental review phase. Next step would be detailed design, followed by construction. If I understand their budget correctly, they're planning to moderately increase spending compared to the current pace that the IAF and North Satellite projects are consuming money.

On Page 25, there is a map showing some potential additional options to complete in the 2034 time frame:

* Add end-around taxiways to avoid crossing runways
* Further consolidate north cargo area for "air freight" (passenger airline cargo?)
* Create a new South Aviation Support Area (south of the tank farm) for "integrator freight" (Fed Ex, etc?)
* Move maintenance hangars to South Aviation Support Area
* Extend 2nd terminal further into current north cargo area
* Extend international terminal further into current maintenance hangar area

Interestingly, Port of Seattle's master plan was based on reaching 25 million passenger enplanements by 2024. They actually hit that level in 2019 (they started scoping the plan in 2014, and growth accelerated).

The Puget Sound Regional Council report is based on a growth rate of only 2.6% through 2050, although in recent years, SEA traffic has grown around 4%. Yet even the PSRC report number would have SEA only meeting about 60% of regional demand. Hence why they're talking about a desire to supplement SEA with 2-3 additional runways in the region providing commercial service.

Will they have the food court open by 2027 is the bigger question. Can the road system handle a bigger airport? The access road and the freeway network leading up to it? I think shifting as much passenger and freight traffic out of SEA is a better solution.
It looks to me like they need to rethink the overall circulation concept. Maybe connect the north concourse to the terminal and get rid of that underground train loop. Build a high capacity linear train route from the south end of A, north to the new terminal and the rental car facility, with five or six stops.

I agree on the high capacity linear train route from the south end of A going all the way north to the rental car facility. Faster, and alleviates road congestion slightly. And I'm thinking that'd get us to/from the rental car facility a lot faster, too.

DenverTed wrote:

iamlucky13 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Moving the garage is a non-starter. Expansion of north satellite or new north terminal will never get done by2027, maybe 2030 if we're lucky. Buying more land on the west side and moving cargo over there is a possibility but again that's really long-term. Look how long it took for the 3rd runway

The SEA plan for approximately the 2027 time frame is most easily understood from the map of projects on pages 28 and 29 of this PDF:

https://www.portseattle.org/sites/defau ... ummary.pdf

A brief summary, not including projects already in work, like the International Arrivals Facility and North Satellite modernization:

* Multiple taxiway changes for more efficient and safer ground movements
* Consolidation of north cargo area and RON area
* Add / relocate cargo warehouses to nearby offsite.
* Airport Expressway road re-alignment
* 2nd Terminal Landside - Ticketing area, parking, and transit station to east of re-aligned road (current site of Doug Fox parking and the cell phone lot)
* 2nd Terminal Airside - 19 gates to west of re-aligned road, connected to ticketing by pedestrian bridge
* Hardstands in area between North Satellite and re-aligned road (served by recently completed concourse D annex?)
* Increased fuel tank farm capacity.
* Add 2nd parking level to the charter and cruise line bus lot.
* Relocation of facilities impacted by the above construction (fire department, lavatory truck dump, deicing storage, etc), some of it to the west side of the airfield, near the FAA TRACON center.

These projects are currently in the environmental review phase. Next step would be detailed design, followed by construction. If I understand their budget correctly, they're planning to moderately increase spending compared to the current pace that the IAF and North Satellite projects are consuming money.

On Page 25, there is a map showing some potential additional options to complete in the 2034 time frame:

* Add end-around taxiways to avoid crossing runways
* Further consolidate north cargo area for "air freight" (passenger airline cargo?)
* Create a new South Aviation Support Area (south of the tank farm) for "integrator freight" (Fed Ex, etc?)
* Move maintenance hangars to South Aviation Support Area
* Extend 2nd terminal further into current north cargo area
* Extend international terminal further into current maintenance hangar area

Interestingly, Port of Seattle's master plan was based on reaching 25 million passenger enplanements by 2024. They actually hit that level in 2019 (they started scoping the plan in 2014, and growth accelerated).

The Puget Sound Regional Council report is based on a growth rate of only 2.6% through 2050, although in recent years, SEA traffic has grown around 4%. Yet even the PSRC report number would have SEA only meeting about 60% of regional demand. Hence why they're talking about a desire to supplement SEA with 2-3 additional runways in the region providing commercial service.

Will they have the food court open by 2027 is the bigger question. Can the road system handle a bigger airport? The access road and the freeway network leading up to it? I think shifting as much passenger and freight traffic out of SEA is a better solution.
It looks to me like they need to rethink the overall circulation concept. Maybe connect the north concourse to the terminal and get rid of that underground train loop. Build a high capacity linear train route from the south end of A, north to the new terminal and the rental car facility, with five or six stops.

LOL on the food court! All the projects currently underway are behind schedule. While COVID definitely contributed to the delays, it doesn't come close to explaining them all. IAF is now looking like it won't open until fall. The north satellite is pretty much done, grand opening next Tuesday June 29th

Does KBFI actually have something hindering its expansion other than boeing?? Like does it not have room to expand?

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Does KBFI actually have something hindering its expansion other than boeing?? Like does it not have room to expand?

There is virtually no room at BFI except for a small terminal.

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Does KBFI actually have something hindering its expansion other than boeing?? Like does it not have room to expand?

Facing climate concerns, will King County stop Boeing Field expansion? (Crosscut, 6/9/2021)

That makes the KCIA Master Plan Update, now underway, a big deal. King County is proposing to expand operations at the airport, increasing its footprint by acquiring new property, lengthening the runway, enlarging the fuel farm and constructing new airplane parking. King County’s nouveau riche need to store their private jets somewhere, after all. Cargo, charter and corporate jet traffic are all expected to notch up. The Master Plan Update forecasts that this expansion will mean a 30% increase in CO₂ emissions by 2035.

Anybody got any guesses on what airlines GEG meet with today at route Americas and what they asked for ?

KCIA has an elevation of only 21 feet, and is built to a large degree on unstable soil. Five feet of sea level rise could turn the whole thing into one squishy swamp. It likely will play a key role if the state grows as much as expected, but what exactly the best role it can fulfill is another question.

airlinepeanuts wrote:

Does KBFI actually have something hindering its expansion other than boeing?? Like does it not have room to expand?

It really doesn't, and for that matter, it's four miles away from SEA, so there really isn't any point in spending the money on a reliever airport project there. BFI serves its purposes for the Seattle area just fine. Relief for SEA needs to be in Snohomish, Pierce or Thurston county.

Was at SEA Monday AM getting a sneak peek at the north satellite renovation before the official opening today. The views of the airfield are tremendous, a spotter's dream. While I was there a Dreamlifter landed - was around 10:00 AM local. Shocked the heck out of me, can't figure out what it was doing there

ER757 wrote:

Was at SEA Monday AM getting a sneak peek at the north satellite renovation before the official opening today. The views of the airfield are tremendous, a spotter's dream. While I was there a Dreamlifter landed - was around 10:00 AM local. Shocked the heck out of me, can't figure out what it was doing there

It looks like this was that Dreamlifter arrival: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI ... /KCHS/KSEA
It departed for Nagoya (NGO), Japan about 3 hours later: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI ... /KSEA/RJGG

This flight typically stops at PAE, I'm assuming to ship frames/parts for Boeing aircraft. IDK why it made the stop in SEA instead of PAE on Monday, though...

Is shifting freight operations like FedEx, UPS, and Amazon out of SeaTac a good idea to make more room for passenger service?

DenverTed wrote:

Is shifting freight operations like FedEx, UPS, and Amazon out of SeaTac a good idea to make more room for passenger service?

The question is where would they go.
UPS is already at BFI and just spent a lot of money on expanding there. However, the fog can get so bad at BFI that UPS diverts their flights to SEA, so there's the weather factor. There's also no room for anything else at BFI so it's sort of a nonstarter idea.

Some people have talked about putting cargo at McChord, I think that's a pipe dream. It's also way too far south to serve the region effectively. Remember, freight is time sensitive too even if "the boxes don't complain." If you're in north Seattle or further north you may never get your cargo.

PAE is likewise too far north for cargo to get anywhere south of downtown in any decent time frame.

PWT while an interesting argument for pax service, total nonstarter for cargo.

RNT is too small, too short, too compact.

Honestly it makes more sense to me to expand passenger service around the Sound at additional airports, PAE is a very good start and a second option would be OLM in my opinion, and leave cargo mostly based at SEA. Otherwise you're talking about a greenfield airport somewhere out between Auburn and Enumclaw which would go through about 50 years of litigation before anything happened. The Northwest just does not do big projects quickly, the politicians want to make everyone happy and if they can't, they don't do anything. Look at the I-5 bridge "replacement" they have been talking about for the past 30 years. Nobody wants to foot the bill so they won't pull the trigger on anything and the most they've done is repaint it.

AC4500 wrote:

ER757 wrote:

Was at SEA Monday AM getting a sneak peek at the north satellite renovation before the official opening today. The views of the airfield are tremendous, a spotter's dream. While I was there a Dreamlifter landed - was around 10:00 AM local. Shocked the heck out of me, can't figure out what it was doing there

It looks like this was that Dreamlifter arrival: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI ... /KCHS/KSEA
It departed for Nagoya (NGO), Japan about 3 hours later: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/GTI ... /KSEA/RJGG

This flight typically stops at PAE, I'm assuming to ship frames/parts for Boeing aircraft. IDK why it made the stop in SEA instead of PAE on Monday, though...

Thanks for tracking it down. I wonder if because it was so hot Monday that SEA was a better option for departure than PAE (elevation, runway length)? Don't know, just a thought. I didn't mention it in my last post, but the airport was jam-packed on Monday, air travel is back in a big way. When I left about 11:30, the backup on the road getting to departures/arrivals was all the way past the cargo road exit

HPRamper wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

Is shifting freight operations like FedEx, UPS, and Amazon out of SeaTac a good idea to make more room for passenger service?

The question is where would they go.
UPS is already at BFI and just spent a lot of money on expanding there. However, the fog can get so bad at BFI that UPS diverts their flights to SEA, so there's the weather factor. There's also no room for anything else at BFI so it's sort of a nonstarter idea.

Some people have talked about putting cargo at McChord, I think that's a pipe dream. It's also way too far south to serve the region effectively. Remember, freight is time sensitive too even if "the boxes don't complain." If you're in north Seattle or further north you may never get your cargo.

PAE is likewise too far north for cargo to get anywhere south of downtown in any decent time frame.

PWT while an interesting argument for pax service, total nonstarter for cargo.

RNT is too small, too short, too compact.

Honestly it makes more sense to me to expand passenger service around the Sound at additional airports, PAE is a very good start and a second option would be OLM in my opinion, and leave cargo mostly based at SEA. Otherwise you're talking about a greenfield airport somewhere out between Auburn and Enumclaw which would go through about 50 years of litigation before anything happened. The Northwest just does not do big projects quickly, the politicians want to make everyone happy and if they can't, they don't do anything. Look at the I-5 bridge "replacement" they have been talking about for the past 30 years. Nobody wants to foot the bill so they won't pull the trigger on anything and the most they've done is repaint it.

Right? The process is slow. If they have to resort to using the shoulder for a freeway lane, then the obvious solution for SeaTac is to start using the taxiways as runways.

Far out idea - move McCord to Bremerton, and voila! A nice available airport for our metro-area. I suspect (but don't know) that McCord's military business does not demand being right next to Fort Lewis. Doesn't it serve the rest of the world as much as the multitude of bases throughout Western Washington.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Far out idea - move McCord to Bremerton, and voila! A nice available airport for our metro-area. I suspect (but don't know) that McCord's military business does not demand being right next to Fort Lewis. Doesn't it serve the rest of the world as much as the multitude of bases throughout Western Washington.

The proximity to Ft Lewis (they are actually a joint base now) would preclude moving it anywhere. It might be possible to build a commercial terminal there and make it a mixed use airport. Think HNL and Hickham AFB as an example. McChord is ideally located to serve as a reliever airport for SEA. Anyone headed to the south sound, southwest interior or even Kitsap or Olympic peninsula could use it

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Far out idea - move McCord to Bremerton, and voila! A nice available airport for our metro-area. I suspect (but don't know) that McCord's military business does not demand being right next to Fort Lewis. Doesn't it serve the rest of the world as much as the multitude of bases throughout Western Washington.

JBLM is a rapid deployment site, I think the C-17s being available to the Army right on the base is crucial to their operations.

DBCoop3r wrote:

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Far out idea - move McCord to Bremerton, and voila! A nice available airport for our metro-area. I suspect (but don't know) that McCord's military business does not demand being right next to Fort Lewis. Doesn't it serve the rest of the world as much as the multitude of bases throughout Western Washington.

JBLM is a rapid deployment site, I think the C-17s being available to the Army right on the base is crucial to their operations.

I am curious what percent of McCord operations are directly serving Ft Lewis. Probably classified info. Likely a lot also serves Naval Base Kitsap (a really spread out operation). And Whidbey Island? A fair amount of the operations are training. Kitsap county is generally welcoming unlike many areas in the state. There are literally square miles of adjacent timberland. And like I said 'Far out'.

I noticed today that FI is flying two 757's to SEA from KEF...like before the pandemic. Is demand for the PNW to Europe growing that fast?

Went to see the renovated part of the N satellite, which seems nice. They replaced the loop layout with a central hallway and deeper gate waiting areas. The lofted ceiling and large windows towards C were nice.
I'm wondering what they are doing with the bridge on A. Lots of stairs coming down on the west side of A and a new enclosed hallways between the outer glass of the current gates and a new wall of glass. Is this for arriving passengers to use the bridge from S to A? Can passengers use the bridge from A to S? Is the bridge only for secure international arrivals, or for all passengers?
I was there in the afternoon, A was completely empty, whereas C,D, and N were standing room only.

DenverTed wrote:

Went to see the renovated part of the N satellite, which seems nice. They replaced the loop layout with a central hallway and deeper gate waiting areas. The lofted ceiling and large windows towards C were nice.
I'm wondering what they are doing with the bridge on A. Lots of stairs coming down on the west side of A and a new enclosed hallways between the outer glass of the current gates and a new wall of glass. Is this for arriving passengers to use the bridge from S to A? Can passengers use the bridge from A to S? Is the bridge only for secure international arrivals, or for all passengers?
I was there in the afternoon, A was completely empty, whereas C,D, and N were standing room only.

I believe the skybridge from S to A is for arriving international passengers only and leads to the new IAF. Outbound passengers and domestic arriving passengers will continue to take the train to/from S and the main terminal. Anyone feel free to correct me if I mis-understand

ER757 wrote:

DenverTed wrote:

Went to see the renovated part of the N satellite, which seems nice. They replaced the loop layout with a central hallway and deeper gate waiting areas. The lofted ceiling and large windows towards C were nice.
I'm wondering what they are doing with the bridge on A. Lots of stairs coming down on the west side of A and a new enclosed hallways between the outer glass of the current gates and a new wall of glass. Is this for arriving passengers to use the bridge from S to A? Can passengers use the bridge from A to S? Is the bridge only for secure international arrivals, or for all passengers?
I was there in the afternoon, A was completely empty, whereas C,D, and N were standing room only.

I believe the skybridge from S to A is for arriving international passengers only and leads to the new IAF. Outbound passengers and domestic arriving passengers will continue to take the train to/from S and the main terminal. Anyone feel free to correct me if I mis-understand

That's what I assumed. I just wonder why they have multiple stairs and elevators headed to the west airside of the A gates, which seem to run a good portion of the concourse. If this is just an emergency exit, it is a big project that takes up a huge amount of real estate.

Those stairs and escalators are for the passengers arriving internationally on A to get to the IAF, and you cross over the A concourse to get there, joining up with the passengers who arrive from the S concourse. Basically all international passengers will be crossing over the A concourse to get to the IAF.

Prost wrote:

Those stairs and escalators are for the passengers arriving internationally on A to get to the IAF, and you cross over the A concourse to get there, joining up with the passengers who arrive from the S concourse. Basically all international passengers will be crossing over the A concourse to get to the IAF.

Yes, now I see this is the new international arrivals corridor on A. This adds more international capable gates than what is currently on S.
From the rendering, it looks like they have several passageways over the roof of A to the IAF hall.