What sort of improvements to baggage claim are being worked on as part of the $2B renovation project? Just did my 30th arrival in Denver for 2022 – it’s a minimum of 90 minutes from touchdown to baggage arrival each time. By far the worst of the major US airports. Even Newark has them out in 30 mins. 1K status/tags & one world priority tags irrelevant.

aden23 wrote:

What sort of improvements to baggage claim are being worked on as part of the $2B renovation project? Just did my 30th arrival in Denver for 2022 – it’s a minimum of 90 minutes from touchdown to baggage arrival each time. By far the worst of the major US airports. Even Newark has them out in 30 mins. 1K status/tags & one world priority tags irrelevant.

Sorry, but my experience has been generally very different. My bags are often on the carousel before I get there. Two exceptions; skis always take a long time and one time our bags were delivered to different carousel than what was shown on the 'board' or the United app. We resorted to simply walking around the carousels searching for our bags.

aden23 wrote:

What sort of improvements to baggage claim are being worked on as part of the $2B renovation project? Just did my 30th arrival in Denver for 2022 – it’s a minimum of 90 minutes from touchdown to baggage arrival each time. By far the worst of the major US airports. Even Newark has them out in 30 mins. 1K status/tags & one world priority tags irrelevant.

It's been hit and miss for the past 12 months on the UA side of baggage claim. I've waited 90 minutes for bags, especially this past winter, but my last few trips the bags have arrived when I walk up to the carousel.

As a UA1K I've lit them up in the surveys about how lousy the baggage claim experience is out there and have been comped some miles as a result. I find that if you're arriving at Gates B48 and above (the UX gates), you'll wait especially long for your luggage. They don't have the manpower on the UX side to handle the volume right now.

Now, don't get me started about UA check-in. It's atrocious.

87GROUNDED wrote:

aden23 wrote:

What sort of improvements to baggage claim are being worked on as part of the $2B renovation project? Just did my 30th arrival in Denver for 2022 – it’s a minimum of 90 minutes from touchdown to baggage arrival each time. By far the worst of the major US airports. Even Newark has them out in 30 mins. 1K status/tags & one world priority tags irrelevant.

It's been hit and miss for the past 12 months on the UA side of baggage claim. I've waited 90 minutes for bags, especially this past winter, but my last few trips the bags have arrived when I walk up to the carousel.

As a UA1K I've lit them up in the surveys about how lousy the baggage claim experience is out there and have been comped some miles as a result. I find that if you're arriving at Gates B48 and above (the UX gates), you'll wait especially long for your luggage. They don't have the manpower on the UX side to handle the volume right now.

Now, don't get me started about UA check-in. It's atrocious.

Only use checkin when checking bags, but hate having to wait and they have all those UA agents standing there doing nothing while ABM/G2 has one person tagging and accepting the bags.

CALMSP wrote:

87GROUNDED wrote:

Now, don't get me started about UA check-in. It's atrocious.

Only use checkin when checking bags, but hate having to wait and they have all those UA agents standing there doing nothing while ABM/G2 has one person tagging and accepting the bags.

Check-in online and drop bags off at the remote station near Pikes Peak parking, then park the car and go straight to the gate. DEN is by far the best airport I've ever used for checking bags due to the drive-up remote location.

Legiath wrote:

cosyr wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

Are gate wait times for intl arrivals with all this new TATL traffic (AF to CDG, UA to MUC not to mention the 2nd LHR flight) a problem anymore? I remember before COVID in 2017, I arrived from CUN and had to wait for a gate and that was before Norwegian and the 1st UA LHR flight launched.

Beyond all the new gates being built on A west, who is getting the few gates (A40,42 and maybe 44?) that F9 added bridges to customs on the south side of A east for narrowbodies, now that they are going to be moving to the ground board gates? Are these going to become common use?

Even if UA doesn't take advantage of those gates, they'll benefit by airlines like Aeromexico, Copa, Cayman, Volaris and maybe even Icelandair using them, reducing the pressure on the widebody gates.

According to the airport’s last presentation on airline moves to city council, A40 is going to UA, A42 is going to Alaska, and A44 and A46 are going to Spirit. It seems the airport believes they will have enough capacity for all other international flights from the common use gates A33-47 (odd only) once UA stops using them.

https://denver.legistar.com/View.ashx?M ... AEB601C83E

I can’t speak to overall wait time stats, but anecdotally, the last time I was at the airport I watched an AF 777 wait 30 minutes for two domestic JetBlue flights to vacate its gate.

If AA moving to C, that is going to make things inconvenient for BA premium passengers wanting to use the Admirals Club. Why couldn’t NK/AS/B6 use the 5 C gates?

As a resident of Colorado, I have been flying in and out of DIA since it opened. I have been a 1K with United since 2001 and I have never waited 90 minutes for my bag to arrive in Denver. Depending on the arrival gate and the baggage carousel, I have had my bag waiting for me when I have arrived to claim it. As far as priority tags go, it is hit or miss if they come up first on the belt.

adv40624 wrote:

As a resident of Colorado, I have been flying in and out of DIA since it opened. I have been a 1K with United since 2001 and I have never waited 90 minutes for my bag to arrive in Denver. Depending on the arrival gate and the baggage carousel, I have had my bag waiting for me when I have arrived to claim it. As far as priority tags go, it is hit or miss if they come up first on the belt.

I have, and at one point on a flight from ORD to DEN, we waited so long for bags that the flight after ours arrived from ORD, and our bags were randomly distributed between the 2 flights.

Runway765 wrote:

Legiath wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Beyond all the new gates being built on A west, who is getting the few gates (A40,42 and maybe 44?) that F9 added bridges to customs on the south side of A east for narrowbodies, now that they are going to be moving to the ground board gates? Are these going to become common use?

Even if UA doesn't take advantage of those gates, they'll benefit by airlines like Aeromexico, Copa, Cayman, Volaris and maybe even Icelandair using them, reducing the pressure on the widebody gates.

According to the airport’s last presentation on airline moves to city council, A40 is going to UA, A42 is going to Alaska, and A44 and A46 are going to Spirit. It seems the airport believes they will have enough capacity for all other international flights from the common use gates A33-47 (odd only) once UA stops using them.

https://denver.legistar.com/View.ashx?M ... AEB601C83E

I can’t speak to overall wait time stats, but anecdotally, the last time I was at the airport I watched an AF 777 wait 30 minutes for two domestic JetBlue flights to vacate its gate.

If AA moving to C, that is going to make things inconvenient for BA premium passengers wanting to use the Admirals Club. Why couldn’t NK/AS/B6 use the 5 C gates?

AA was late to the game and was left with C.

Runway765 wrote:

Legiath wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Beyond all the new gates being built on A west, who is getting the few gates (A40,42 and maybe 44?) that F9 added bridges to customs on the south side of A east for narrowbodies, now that they are going to be moving to the ground board gates? Are these going to become common use?

Even if UA doesn't take advantage of those gates, they'll benefit by airlines like Aeromexico, Copa, Cayman, Volaris and maybe even Icelandair using them, reducing the pressure on the widebody gates.

According to the airport’s last presentation on airline moves to city council, A40 is going to UA, A42 is going to Alaska, and A44 and A46 are going to Spirit. It seems the airport believes they will have enough capacity for all other international flights from the common use gates A33-47 (odd only) once UA stops using them.

https://denver.legistar.com/View.ashx?M ... AEB601C83E

I can’t speak to overall wait time stats, but anecdotally, the last time I was at the airport I watched an AF 777 wait 30 minutes for two domestic JetBlue flights to vacate its gate.

If AA moving to C, that is going to make things inconvenient for BA premium passengers wanting to use the Admirals Club. Why couldn’t NK/AS/B6 use the 5 C gates?

The lounge in A is technically a joint AA/BA lounge, and if I remember correctly, it was a BA lounge even before AA moved into A. I would think that BA wouldn’t lose that.

Press release from airport states they are narrowing down routes for Africa air service. There’s even a survey to gage interest in particular travel destinations, alliances, and connecting hubs.

https://www.flydenver.com/sites/default ... Survey.pdf

Anyone know the rationale for why the airport is so keen on a route to Africa? Doesn’t even seem likely it could be direct, and with already existing EU connections I’m puzzled by the business case and focus here vs. looking into other disconnected locations.

It reads as if it's a Phil Washington vanity project. It seems as though this committee and survey are trying to figure out things they could easily figure out. The airport should already have enough passenger data on hand to know that there's more than likely not enough demand to justify service.

The first page reads:

As part of this survey, you will be asked to evaluate 15 cities across the continent of Africa – these 15 cities represent the highest demand for travel between Denver and Africa. Please keep in mind that most cities in East Africa and South Africa cannot be reached nonstop from Denver due to distance, altitude and other technical issues. Flights from Denver to many cities in East Africa and South Africa will require an en route stop.

What, then is the point of this then!?!?

And for those who don't feel like clicking through, the 15 cities under consideration are:

Accra, Ghana
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Algiers, Algeria
Cairo, Egypt
Cape Town, South Africa
Casablanca, Morocco
Dakar, Senegal
Entebbe/Kampala, Uganda
Johannesburg, South Africa
Khartoum, Sudan
Kigali, Rwanda
Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
Lagos, Nigeria
Lilongwe, Malawi
Nairobi, Kenya

Those really feel like a stretch. Can't imagine any of those except maybe LOS with through service to somewhere else. Even then, that seems pretty far-fetched. I can't imagine UA would be interested, much less any other major carrier. SAA is moribund. ET? That still sounds crazy.

Legiath wrote:

Press release from airport states they are narrowing down routes for Africa air service. There’s even a survey to gage interest in particular travel destinations, alliances, and connecting hubs.

https://www.flydenver.com/sites/default ... Survey.pdf

Anyone know the rationale for why the airport is so keen on a route to Africa? Doesn’t even seem likely it could be direct, and with already existing EU connections I’m puzzled by the business case and focus here vs. looking into other disconnected locations.

Colorado is by far the number one growth state for immigrants from Africa, but it’s still a small population. There’s also some military and mining traffic. Only a Star hub would make any sense at all, but still hard to imagine anyone making money on that.

intotheair wrote:

It reads as if it's a Phil Washington vanity project. It seems as though this committee and survey are trying to figure out things they could easily figure out. The airport should already have enough passenger data on hand to know that there's more than likely not enough demand to justify service.

To me it reads like an excuse for officials to take airport-funded junkets in the name of fact-finding.

intotheair wrote:

It reads as if it's a Phil Washington vanity project. It seems as though this committee and survey are trying to figure out things they could easily figure out. The airport should already have enough passenger data on hand to know that there's more than likely not enough demand to justify service.

The first page reads:

As part of this survey, you will be asked to evaluate 15 cities across the continent of Africa – these 15 cities represent the highest demand for travel between Denver and Africa. Please keep in mind that most cities in East Africa and South Africa cannot be reached nonstop from Denver due to distance, altitude and other technical issues. Flights from Denver to many cities in East Africa and South Africa will require an en route stop.

What, then is the point of this then!?!?

And for those who don't feel like clicking through, the 15 cities under consideration are:

Accra, Ghana
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Algiers, Algeria
Cairo, Egypt
Cape Town, South Africa
Casablanca, Morocco
Dakar, Senegal
Entebbe/Kampala, Uganda
Johannesburg, South Africa
Khartoum, Sudan
Kigali, Rwanda
Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
Lagos, Nigeria
Lilongwe, Malawi
Nairobi, Kenya

Those really feel like a stretch. Can't imagine any of those except maybe LOS with through service to somewhere else. Even then, that seems pretty far-fetched. I can't imagine UA would be interested, much less any other major carrier. SAA is moribund. ET? That still sounds crazy.

It's a government "let's get the stakeholders involved and have focus groups, surveys, and sheet cake cutting events where we can show the public that we really do care even though we already have this data" project.

They know the data, they know what will work, and they know that the service will fail in 12-18 months but they have to justify their departments and headcount somehow. It's DIA.

I don't see the point of a direct Africa service if/when TK starts the long speculated IST route. That is a perfect jumping off point for any place on the continent.

airbazar wrote:

CALMSP wrote:

87GROUNDED wrote:

Now, don't get me started about UA check-in. It's atrocious.

Only use checkin when checking bags, but hate having to wait and they have all those UA agents standing there doing nothing while ABM/G2 has one person tagging and accepting the bags.

Check-in online and drop bags off at the remote station near Pikes Peak parking, then park the car and go straight to the gate. DEN is by far the best airport I've ever used for checking bags due to the drive-up remote location.

Is the remote area back open? I thought they got rid of the trailer and everything when COVID hit and haven’t noticed it being back. I used it in February 2020 right before all hell broke loose and it was a fantastic experience.

mkorpal333 wrote:

I don't see the point of a direct Africa service if/when TK starts the long speculated IST route. That is a perfect jumping off point for any place on the continent.

For East Africa, Eastern North Africa and Southern Africa yes great connection have done it before. For West Arica, significant backtrack, better done from Western Europe or JFK/ATL. That said don't see any type of nonstop flight to DEN to Africa in the next 20 years at least.

bfitzflyer wrote:

mkorpal333 wrote:

I don't see the point of a direct Africa service if/when TK starts the long speculated IST route. That is a perfect jumping off point for any place on the continent.

For East Africa, Eastern North Africa and Southern Africa yes great connection have done it before. For West Arica, significant backtrack, better done from Western Europe or JFK/ATL. That said don't see any type of nonstop flight to DEN to Africa in the next 20 years at least.

I wouldn’t say 20 years. I could see it happening within the next five years. Especially with ET’s ambitious growth plans and DEN being a major hub for Star Alliance parter UA.

intotheair wrote:

It reads as if it's a Phil Washington vanity project. It seems as though this committee and survey are trying to figure out things they could easily figure out. The airport should already have enough passenger data on hand to know that there's more than likely not enough demand to justify service.

The first page reads:

As part of this survey, you will be asked to evaluate 15 cities across the continent of Africa – these 15 cities represent the highest demand for travel between Denver and Africa. Please keep in mind that most cities in East Africa and South Africa cannot be reached nonstop from Denver due to distance, altitude and other technical issues. Flights from Denver to many cities in East Africa and South Africa will require an en route stop.

What, then is the point of this then!?!?

And for those who don't feel like clicking through, the 15 cities under consideration are:

Accra, Ghana
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Algiers, Algeria
Cairo, Egypt
Cape Town, South Africa
Casablanca, Morocco
Dakar, Senegal
Entebbe/Kampala, Uganda
Johannesburg, South Africa
Khartoum, Sudan
Kigali, Rwanda
Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
Lagos, Nigeria
Lilongwe, Malawi
Nairobi, Kenya

Those really feel like a stretch. Can't imagine any of those except maybe LOS with through service to somewhere else. Even then, that seems pretty far-fetched. I can't imagine UA would be interested, much less any other major carrier. SAA is moribund. ET? That still sounds crazy.

The most likely destination is easily Addis Ababa. A solid Ethiopian population, combined with a Star Alliance hub makes sense at some point. ET could also tap into traffic from SEA, LAX, and LAS, which also have large Ethiopian populations. Ethiopian isn't afraid to throw 788s on long haul routes, and with the fuel agreement in Dublin, I could see a DEN-DUB-ADD and back trip easily happening within the next 5 years. Ethiopian is poised for some growth in North America, and Denver could benefit.

yoshoward12 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

It reads as if it's a Phil Washington vanity project. It seems as though this committee and survey are trying to figure out things they could easily figure out. The airport should already have enough passenger data on hand to know that there's more than likely not enough demand to justify service.

The first page reads:

As part of this survey, you will be asked to evaluate 15 cities across the continent of Africa – these 15 cities represent the highest demand for travel between Denver and Africa. Please keep in mind that most cities in East Africa and South Africa cannot be reached nonstop from Denver due to distance, altitude and other technical issues. Flights from Denver to many cities in East Africa and South Africa will require an en route stop.

What, then is the point of this then!?!?

And for those who don't feel like clicking through, the 15 cities under consideration are:

Accra, Ghana
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Algiers, Algeria
Cairo, Egypt
Cape Town, South Africa
Casablanca, Morocco
Dakar, Senegal
Entebbe/Kampala, Uganda
Johannesburg, South Africa
Khartoum, Sudan
Kigali, Rwanda
Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
Lagos, Nigeria
Lilongwe, Malawi
Nairobi, Kenya

Those really feel like a stretch. Can't imagine any of those except maybe LOS with through service to somewhere else. Even then, that seems pretty far-fetched. I can't imagine UA would be interested, much less any other major carrier. SAA is moribund. ET? That still sounds crazy.

The most likely destination is easily Addis Ababa. A solid Ethiopian population, combined with a Star Alliance hub makes sense at some point. ET could also tap into traffic from SEA, LAX, and LAS, which also have large Ethiopian populations. Ethiopian isn't afraid to throw 788s on long haul routes, and with the fuel agreement in Dublin, I could see a DEN-DUB-ADD and back trip easily happening within the next 5 years. Ethiopian is poised for some growth in North America, and Denver could benefit.

Can passengers get on / off in Dublin with ET? That’s another market that could use direct service to DEN…

Legiath wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

It reads as if it's a Phil Washington vanity project. It seems as though this committee and survey are trying to figure out things they could easily figure out. The airport should already have enough passenger data on hand to know that there's more than likely not enough demand to justify service.

The first page reads:



What, then is the point of this then!?!?

And for those who don't feel like clicking through, the 15 cities under consideration are:



Those really feel like a stretch. Can't imagine any of those except maybe LOS with through service to somewhere else. Even then, that seems pretty far-fetched. I can't imagine UA would be interested, much less any other major carrier. SAA is moribund. ET? That still sounds crazy.

The most likely destination is easily Addis Ababa. A solid Ethiopian population, combined with a Star Alliance hub makes sense at some point. ET could also tap into traffic from SEA, LAX, and LAS, which also have large Ethiopian populations. Ethiopian isn't afraid to throw 788s on long haul routes, and with the fuel agreement in Dublin, I could see a DEN-DUB-ADD and back trip easily happening within the next 5 years. Ethiopian is poised for some growth in North America, and Denver could benefit.

Can passengers get on / off in Dublin with ET? That’s another market that could use direct service to DEN…

As of right now, no. Remember, a few years back ET ran LAX-DUB-ADD, and pax were able to get off. Now, its just for refueling. I believe Ethiopian was working on allowing pax to get off at DUB, but I don’t anticipate that in the near future. But yea, DEN needs DUB. Aer Lingus maybe?

May 2022 Pax numbers
- Compared to 2019, numbers are down again, Operations are down compared to both 2019 & 2021.
- Interesting to see how much international has grown since 2019 with 13% more passengers.
- Southwest had a really good month, American had a bad month.
- In 2021, the connecting percentage was 43% which is the highest it has been. 2022 is so far at 41% as things are returning to noraml, pre-Covid the percentage was at 36%.



It will be interesting to see if the projections were correct with the airport exceeding 70 million this year. Southwest has their new gates and UA doesn't get any extra space until October, so I don't think it will make a big difference this year.

yoshoward12 wrote:

Legiath wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

The most likely destination is easily Addis Ababa. A solid Ethiopian population, combined with a Star Alliance hub makes sense at some point. ET could also tap into traffic from SEA, LAX, and LAS, which also have large Ethiopian populations. Ethiopian isn't afraid to throw 788s on long haul routes, and with the fuel agreement in Dublin, I could see a DEN-DUB-ADD and back trip easily happening within the next 5 years. Ethiopian is poised for some growth in North America, and Denver could benefit.

Can passengers get on / off in Dublin with ET? That’s another market that could use direct service to DEN…

As of right now, no. Remember, a few years back ET ran LAX-DUB-ADD, and pax were able to get off. Now, its just for refueling. I believe Ethiopian was working on allowing pax to get off at DUB, but I don’t anticipate that in the near future. But yea, DEN needs DUB. Aer Lingus maybe?

Can you say what makes you think DEN needs DUB? Its not that big of a market and there isnt much in the way of connections to offer between EI and UA.

ET at DEN makes little sense. DEN's Ethiopian and African populations aren't that large. Not only that but besides a very basic codeshare, ET and UA dont work that well together. They only codeshare via IAD anyway. They dont codeshare to ORD or JFK.

This is the number of foreign born Sub-Saharan Africans by metro area:
New York City: 254,759
Washington DC: 235,979
Dallas/Fort Worth: 134,605
Atlanta: 132,761
Houston: 120,715
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 120,101
Boston: 87,605
Baltimore: 84,231
Philadelphia: 84,169
Chicago: 74,813
Los Angeles: 73,918
Seattle/Tacoma: 69,397
Columbus: 49,819
Charlotte: 47,940
San Francisco/San Jose: 44,353
Providence: 40,356
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 36,717
Indianapolis: 34,678
Detroit: 32,998
Nashville: 32,610
Las Vegas: 32,154
Phoenix: 31,158
Denver: 29,120

And for Ethiopians by themselves as of 2020:
Washington DC: 53,056
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 20,935
Seattle/Tacoma: 18,732
Dallas/Fort Worth: 14,705
Atlanta: 14,428
Las Vegas: 10,699
Los Angeles: 8,355
Denver: 8,458
Houston: 5,612
Chicago: 5,118

Source is data.census.gov for the above numbers.

303dk wrote:

Legiath wrote:

Press release from airport states they are narrowing down routes for Africa air service. There’s even a survey to gage interest in particular travel destinations, alliances, and connecting hubs.

https://www.flydenver.com/sites/default ... Survey.pdf

Anyone know the rationale for why the airport is so keen on a route to Africa? Doesn’t even seem likely it could be direct, and with already existing EU connections I’m puzzled by the business case and focus here vs. looking into other disconnected locations.

Colorado is by far the number one growth state for immigrants from Africa, but it’s still a small population. There’s also some military and mining traffic. Only a Star hub would make any sense at all, but still hard to imagine anyone making money on that.

No it isnt. Colorado definitely isnt number one or two or three or even top 10 for Sub-Saharan African growth.

Below are the top metro areas by foreign born African resident growth between 2010-2020. Texas is the top state by sheer number. Minnesota by growth rate.

New York City: 105,070
Washington DC: 75,588
Houston: 54,601
Dallas/Fort Worth: 54,301
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 41,111
Los Angeles: 38,977
Seattle/Tacoma: 36,777
Atlanta: 35,740
Boston: 32,978
Chicago: 27,753
San Francisco: 25,325
Philadelphia: 25,088
Phoenix: 22,939
Baltimore: 18,957
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 16,477
Denver: 15,952

LAXdude1023 wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

Legiath wrote:

Can passengers get on / off in Dublin with ET? That’s another market that could use direct service to DEN…

As of right now, no. Remember, a few years back ET ran LAX-DUB-ADD, and pax were able to get off. Now, its just for refueling. I believe Ethiopian was working on allowing pax to get off at DUB, but I don’t anticipate that in the near future. But yea, DEN needs DUB. Aer Lingus maybe?

Can you say what makes you think DEN needs DUB? Its not that big of a market and there isnt much in the way of connections to offer between EI and UA.

ET at DEN makes little sense. DEN's Ethiopian and African populations aren't that large. Not only that but besides a very basic codeshare, ET and UA dont work that well together. They only codeshare via IAD anyway. They dont codeshare to ORD or JFK.

This is the number of foreign born Sub-Saharan Africans by metro area:
New York City: 254,759
Washington DC: 235,979
Dallas/Fort Worth: 134,605
Atlanta: 132,761
Houston: 120,715
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 120,101
Boston: 87,605
Baltimore: 84,231
Philadelphia: 84,169
Chicago: 74,813
Los Angeles: 73,918
Seattle/Tacoma: 69,397
Columbus: 49,819
Charlotte: 47,940
San Francisco/San Jose: 44,353
Providence: 40,356
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 36,717
Indianapolis: 34,678
Detroit: 32,998
Nashville: 32,610
Las Vegas: 32,154
Phoenix: 31,158
Denver: 29,120

And for Ethiopians by themselves as of 2020:
Washington DC: 53,056
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 20,935
Seattle/Tacoma: 18,732
Dallas/Fort Worth: 14,705
Atlanta: 14,428
Las Vegas: 10,699
Los Angeles: 8,355
Denver: 8,458
Houston: 5,612
Chicago: 5,118

Source is data.census.gov for the above numbers.

Dublin and Amsterdam are the two top unserved markets to Europe from Denver. Scroll down in the attached presentation and look at the target markets the airport is after, which includes Dublin.

https://riacevents.org/ACE/13/presentat ... opment.pdf

Legiath wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

yoshoward12 wrote:

As of right now, no. Remember, a few years back ET ran LAX-DUB-ADD, and pax were able to get off. Now, its just for refueling. I believe Ethiopian was working on allowing pax to get off at DUB, but I don’t anticipate that in the near future. But yea, DEN needs DUB. Aer Lingus maybe?

Can you say what makes you think DEN needs DUB? Its not that big of a market and there isnt much in the way of connections to offer between EI and UA.

ET at DEN makes little sense. DEN's Ethiopian and African populations aren't that large. Not only that but besides a very basic codeshare, ET and UA dont work that well together. They only codeshare via IAD anyway. They dont codeshare to ORD or JFK.

This is the number of foreign born Sub-Saharan Africans by metro area:
New York City: 254,759
Washington DC: 235,979
Dallas/Fort Worth: 134,605
Atlanta: 132,761
Houston: 120,715
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 120,101
Boston: 87,605
Baltimore: 84,231
Philadelphia: 84,169
Chicago: 74,813
Los Angeles: 73,918
Seattle/Tacoma: 69,397
Columbus: 49,819
Charlotte: 47,940
San Francisco/San Jose: 44,353
Providence: 40,356
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 36,717
Indianapolis: 34,678
Detroit: 32,998
Nashville: 32,610
Las Vegas: 32,154
Phoenix: 31,158
Denver: 29,120

And for Ethiopians by themselves as of 2020:
Washington DC: 53,056
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 20,935
Seattle/Tacoma: 18,732
Dallas/Fort Worth: 14,705
Atlanta: 14,428
Las Vegas: 10,699
Los Angeles: 8,355
Denver: 8,458
Houston: 5,612
Chicago: 5,118

Source is data.census.gov for the above numbers.

Dublin and Amsterdam are the two top unserved markets to Europe from Denver. Scroll down in the attached presentation and look at the target markets the airport is after, which includes Dublin.

https://riacevents.org/ACE/13/presentat ... opment.pdf

A couple of things:

1) Just because a market may be the largest unserved market from any airport, doesnt mean its worthy of service.

2) Leadership from any airport is going to try and cast as wide a net as possible. They are going to have lots of target destinations and they will try to get them. But thats literally true everywhere and very few of them come to fruition. I dont fault DEN or any airport for trying to get those but the truth of the matter is most of those destinations won't see the light of day.

Some of the destinations on that map are possible, but most are not. Without a full on revenue guarantee or a very large O&D, nothing is a sure thing.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

303dk wrote:

Legiath wrote:

Press release from airport states they are narrowing down routes for Africa air service. There’s even a survey to gage interest in particular travel destinations, alliances, and connecting hubs.

https://www.flydenver.com/sites/default ... Survey.pdf

Anyone know the rationale for why the airport is so keen on a route to Africa? Doesn’t even seem likely it could be direct, and with already existing EU connections I’m puzzled by the business case and focus here vs. looking into other disconnected locations.

Colorado is by far the number one growth state for immigrants from Africa, but it’s still a small population. There’s also some military and mining traffic. Only a Star hub would make any sense at all, but still hard to imagine anyone making money on that.

No it isnt. Colorado definitely isnt number one or two or three or even top 10 for Sub-Saharan African growth.

Below are the top metro areas by foreign born African resident growth between 2010-2020. Texas is the top state by sheer number. Minnesota by growth rate.

New York City: 105,070
Washington DC: 75,588
Houston: 54,601
Dallas/Fort Worth: 54,301
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 41,111
Los Angeles: 38,977
Seattle/Tacoma: 36,777
Atlanta: 35,740
Boston: 32,978
Chicago: 27,753
San Francisco: 25,325
Philadelphia: 25,088
Phoenix: 22,939
Baltimore: 18,957
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 16,477
Denver: 15,952

I didn’t say sub-Saharan. Here’s the source: https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2022 ... n-increase

303dk wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

303dk wrote:

Colorado is by far the number one growth state for immigrants from Africa, but it’s still a small population. There’s also some military and mining traffic. Only a Star hub would make any sense at all, but still hard to imagine anyone making money on that.

No it isnt. Colorado definitely isnt number one or two or three or even top 10 for Sub-Saharan African growth.

Below are the top metro areas by foreign born African resident growth between 2010-2020. Texas is the top state by sheer number. Minnesota by growth rate.

New York City: 105,070
Washington DC: 75,588
Houston: 54,601
Dallas/Fort Worth: 54,301
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 41,111
Los Angeles: 38,977
Seattle/Tacoma: 36,777
Atlanta: 35,740
Boston: 32,978
Chicago: 27,753
San Francisco: 25,325
Philadelphia: 25,088
Phoenix: 22,939
Baltimore: 18,957
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 16,477
Denver: 15,952

I didn’t say sub-Saharan. Here’s the source: https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2022 ... n-increase

Just to be clear, you do know what Sub-Saharan African is, correct? Its all of Africa excluding Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Mauritania. That means countries like Ethiopia, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, etc. are all included. In the context of this conversation and the link you provided, literally all thats been spoken of is Sub-Saharan Africa.

As per your link, theres almost no context. The Sub-Saharan African population in Colorado was almost non-existent in the year 2000. So saying it grew 433% isnt saying much at all. The numbers clearly show that Colorado is a destination for African Immigrants but a very minor one compared to Texas, New York, Minnesota, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, etc. When were talking about the context in which a flight to Africa is viable, what percentage it grew based on such a low number doesnt really matter. Its the bulk of the growth that matters.

Welp, DIA needs a plan for a back up to the trains. Train meltdown lasted about 30+ minutes a bit ago.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

303dk wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

No it isnt. Colorado definitely isnt number one or two or three or even top 10 for Sub-Saharan African growth.

Below are the top metro areas by foreign born African resident growth between 2010-2020. Texas is the top state by sheer number. Minnesota by growth rate.

New York City: 105,070
Washington DC: 75,588
Houston: 54,601
Dallas/Fort Worth: 54,301
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 41,111
Los Angeles: 38,977
Seattle/Tacoma: 36,777
Atlanta: 35,740
Boston: 32,978
Chicago: 27,753
San Francisco: 25,325
Philadelphia: 25,088
Phoenix: 22,939
Baltimore: 18,957
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 16,477
Denver: 15,952

I didn’t say sub-Saharan. Here’s the source: https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2022 ... n-increase

Just to be clear, you do know what Sub-Saharan African is, correct? Its all of Africa excluding Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Mauritania. That means countries like Ethiopia, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, etc. are all included. In the context of this conversation and the link you provided, literally all thats been spoken of is Sub-Saharan Africa.

As per your link, theres almost no context. The Sub-Saharan African population in Colorado was almost non-existent in the year 2000. So saying it grew 433% isnt saying much at all. The numbers clearly show that Colorado is a destination for African Immigrants but a very minor one compared to Texas, New York, Minnesota, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, etc. When were talking about the context in which a flight to Africa is viable, what percentage it grew based on such a low number doesnt really matter. Its the bulk of the growth that matters.

feel free to send your feedback to the author of the source article

303dk wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

303dk wrote:

I didn’t say sub-Saharan. Here’s the source: https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2022 ... n-increase

Just to be clear, you do know what Sub-Saharan African is, correct? Its all of Africa excluding Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, and Mauritania. That means countries like Ethiopia, Somalia, Mali, Nigeria, etc. are all included. In the context of this conversation and the link you provided, literally all thats been spoken of is Sub-Saharan Africa.

As per your link, theres almost no context. The Sub-Saharan African population in Colorado was almost non-existent in the year 2000. So saying it grew 433% isnt saying much at all. The numbers clearly show that Colorado is a destination for African Immigrants but a very minor one compared to Texas, New York, Minnesota, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, etc. When were talking about the context in which a flight to Africa is viable, what percentage it grew based on such a low number doesnt really matter. Its the bulk of the growth that matters.

feel free to send your feedback to the author of the source article

I have no interest in doing so. Im only correcting incorrect information and information presented without context on this board to which there was plenty on this thread regarding the demographics of Denver. That is all Im interested in.

ChetManly24 wrote:

Welp, DIA needs a plan for a back up to the trains. Train meltdown lasted about 30+ minutes a bit ago.

You would think some architect/engineer would have realized what a colossal single point of failure the train system was and proposed some sort of backup. Either during the design phase or sometime in the last 20 years. The A bridge is fine for A, but there is absolutely no way to get to/from B or C without the train.

There are buses from A to B and C concourses. Sounds like they only deploy them when the train is completely broken.

They are more of an evacuation tool than backup for the train though.

https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/b ... ing-people


That article says a tunnel would be 100 million.

There are posts here that talk about where a tunnel would run - the baggage carts run in a tunnel and the walking tunnel would have to go below it, IIRC. And the tunnels would be longer than Atlanta’s. The Illuminati would lose valuable space.

The original master plan had the trains running out to concourse D (or E?) and looping back thru the outer portion of the concourses - but even the city has abandoned that and just plans on building new concourses where the parking garages/economy parking is.

In the long run the airport has plans to add train cars, but not much else.

And that can’t happen until all the rolling stock is replaced.

Hi All, new member here with a question on a different topic. .Does anyone have any info on AF loads into and out of DEN? I would love to see them continue DEN-CDG year-round. I hope with all the LHR, FRA & MUC flights currently in DEN that AF will make this a permanent destination.

Has there been anything revealed about that public call for solutions to the train bottleneck?

ADent wrote:

There are buses from A to B and C concourses. Sounds like they only deploy them when the train is completely broken.

They are more of an evacuation tool than backup for the train though.

https://www.aviationpros.com/airports/b ... ing-people


That article says a tunnel would be 100 million.

There are posts here that talk about where a tunnel would run - the baggage carts run in a tunnel and the walking tunnel would have to go below it, IIRC. And the tunnels would be longer than Atlanta’s. The Illuminati would lose valuable space.

The original master plan had the trains running out to concourse D (or E?) and looping back thru the outer portion of the concourses - but even the city has abandoned that and just plans on building new concourses where the parking garages/economy parking is.

In the long run the airport has plans to add train cars, but not much else.

And that can’t happen until all the rolling stock is replaced.

The last estimate I saw back in 2018/19 was 400 million for a tunnel from A to C. I imagine that it is probably more in the 600-700 million range now with all of the cost increases. This tunnel would run under the East baggage tunnel and connect each train platform.

Might be worth speaking to TBC - The Boring Company on strictly a walking tunnel between A and C. Wonder what that would cost?

https://www.boringcompany.com/products

bretonrlong wrote:

Might be worth speaking to TBC - The Boring Company on strictly a walking tunnel between A and C. Wonder what that would cost?

https://www.boringcompany.com/products

A 12-foot diameter pedestrian tunnel wouldn't be even remotely adequate. You'd be able to get a usable walking space of eight feet by eight feet. I'm not even sure how you ensure proper ventilation if you're trying to push hundreds of people through a tight space like that, let alone dealing with emergency egress.

ScottB wrote:

bretonrlong wrote:

Might be worth speaking to TBC - The Boring Company on strictly a walking tunnel between A and C. Wonder what that would cost?

https://www.boringcompany.com/products

A 12-foot diameter pedestrian tunnel wouldn't be even remotely adequate. You'd be able to get a usable walking space of eight feet by eight feet. I'm not even sure how you ensure proper ventilation if you're trying to push hundreds of people through a tight space like that, let alone dealing with emergency egress.

You could do multiple tunnels as needed.

"Includes: tunnel (12-foot inner diameter), flat walk/ride surface, LED lighting, emergency backup lighting, CCTV video system, cell phone service, fire safety system, ventilation system, project engineering, environmental review, and permitting"

Currently DEN has a 0 ft diameter tunnel I.e. one doesn't exist. Alternative: spend ~500-700 mln.

Again, I was thinking we were talking supplemental to the train system, not primary use.

303dk wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

303dk wrote:

Colorado is by far the number one growth state for immigrants from Africa, but it’s still a small population. There’s also some military and mining traffic. Only a Star hub would make any sense at all, but still hard to imagine anyone making money on that.

No it isnt. Colorado definitely isnt number one or two or three or even top 10 for Sub-Saharan African growth.

Below are the top metro areas by foreign born African resident growth between 2010-2020. Texas is the top state by sheer number. Minnesota by growth rate.

New York City: 105,070
Washington DC: 75,588
Houston: 54,601
Dallas/Fort Worth: 54,301
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 41,111
Los Angeles: 38,977
Seattle/Tacoma: 36,777
Atlanta: 35,740
Boston: 32,978
Chicago: 27,753
San Francisco: 25,325
Philadelphia: 25,088
Phoenix: 22,939
Baltimore: 18,957
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 16,477
Denver: 15,952

I didn’t say sub-Saharan. Here’s the source: https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2022 ... n-increase

The source you provided is based on % increase which basically means nothing if you have 5 people and increase to 7 than your % is higher than a 6,000 numerical increase at 1%

pg747 wrote:

Hi All, new member here with a question on a different topic. .Does anyone have any info on AF loads into and out of DEN? I would love to see them continue DEN-CDG year-round. I hope with all the LHR, FRA & MUC flights currently in DEN that AF will make this a permanent destination.

I don't have numbers, but AF did send a 777-300 into DEN today from CDG

Phil Washington tapped for the FAA administrator position.

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/06/p ... rport/amp/

DEN2021 wrote:

Phil Washington tapped for the FAA administrator position.

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/06/p ... rport/amp/

Given how incredibly under qualified, he was for the Denver international position, it should not surprise me as much that they’re going this route for the FAA.

Fun shots from inside UA's operations at DEN https://youtu.be/pgTstGlM9x0

bretonrlong wrote:

You could do multiple tunnels as needed.

"Includes: tunnel (12-foot inner diameter), flat walk/ride surface, LED lighting, emergency backup lighting, CCTV video system, cell phone service, fire safety system, ventilation system, project engineering, environmental review, and permitting"

Currently DEN has a 0 ft diameter tunnel I.e. one doesn't exist. Alternative: spend ~500-700 mln.

Again, I was thinking we were talking supplemental to the train system, not primary use.

At some point the cost of multiple tunnels equals the cost of building one big one.

And I get that it would be supplemental and a backup to the train system, but it is critical to remember that when the train system goes down (and that's why we're talking about a pedestrian tunnel) this becomes the primary means of access for passengers to and from B & C. Imagine an empty A220 cabin (i.e. no seats) and then think about trying to funnel thousands of passengers per hour through that size tube, over half a mile long. Now imagine what happens if someone yells "Fire!" or there is an actual fire.

Looks like the capital one lounge is being postponed to 2023

https://www.capitalone.com/learn-grow/m ... -airports/

Denver International Airport shuts down section of light-up welcome display after equipment theft

Denver International Airport’s elaborate welcome display got off to a rocky start after it flicked on the flashy 1,000-foot installation five years ago, dogged by glitches and breakdowns. Now part of it has gone dark again — this time, because thieves made off with key equipment.

DIA said Friday that it reported the theft to the Denver Police Department, describing the missing items in a news release as electrical components “necessary for the operation of our easternmost digital welcome sign.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2022/07/08/d ... ign-theft/

I was at DEN today with a gate pass to pick up my son flying unaccompanied. First time I've had to look at a non-pre-check line in a long time since gate passes don't get pre check privileges.

My goodness, it was wrapped the whole way around to baggage claim. Insanity

Fortunately none of them realized there was an A bridge security lane, and got through there in a few minutes. But I've never seen a line that long at DEN before.

smokeybandit wrote:

...My goodness, it was wrapped the whole way around to baggage claim. Insanity

Fortunately none of them realized there was an A bridge security lane, and got through there in a few minutes. But I've never seen a line that long at DEN before.

That is a daily occurrence since travel came back. It's *always* bad, and the signage is non-existent. Not great for people who either don't live here and/or don't fly frequently enough to know where to go in this mess of a terminal.