Altimeter2992 wrote:

BWI could possibly get more passenger(just shooting in the dark here) if they have an expansion of MARC service from BWI into Montgomery County and into parts of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William counties. Another option I would suggest is an extension of DC Metro line to BWI with stops at Bowie State,(for students and faculty) NSA/Fort Mead (for federal workers) a stop a Arundel mills mall (general public) and terminate at BWI. But I would suggest the line be underground until after Bowie State because of the wildlife wetlands and be suspended on a small bridge and then go back underground at NSA/Fort Mead.

Sounds good but MARC runs to BWI from DC.. I don't think the local governments would spend billions on Metro expansion with another option available that is so similar.. This isn't like the Silver line where the area was devoid of public rail access..

Altimeter2992 wrote:

BWI could possibly get more passenger(just shooting in the dark here) if they have an expansion of MARC service from BWI into Montgomery County and into parts of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William counties.

Not nearly enough to be even close to worth the expense. There are no existing rail lines in western Fairfax or Loudoun, and if you live out here, you'd be crazy not to fly from IAD. I live 15 minutes from IAD and won't even use DCA (much less BWI), and DCA has a Metro link. A rail link to BWI won't make it more appealing regardless of how quickly it can make the trip. Even then, I can't see it being anything less than 1:30 from Loudoun to BWI if it's going through DC.

Altimeter2992 wrote:

Another option I would suggest is an extension of DC Metro line to BWI with stops at Bowie State,(for students and faculty) NSA/Fort Mead (for federal workers) a stop a Arundel mills mall (general public) and terminate at BWI. But I would suggest the line be underground until after Bowie State because of the wildlife wetlands and be suspended on a small bridge and then go back underground at NSA/Fort Mead.

It took close to 40 years to build the Silver Line from conception to completion. I'm in my 30s, and I'll probably be dead, buried, and forgotten before a Metro line to BWI opens.

uconn99 wrote:

Could we see a 5th or 6th bank from United at IAD anytime soon? I believe it was mentioned in the past that UA wouldn't consider a true C/D replacement until a 6th bank was added. Is the 4th bank year round currently?

It could, but United can't seem to make up its mind when it comes to IAD. Pre-covid there were big expansion plans to place more of a reliance on connections at IAD instead of EWR, but sometime since then, they seem to have forgotten that idea. IAD is far better equipped to handle connecting volume than EWR (obviously it'll be more efficient with a C/D replacement though), but they only choose to utilize IAD for about five hours a day. Given their newfound interest in defending IAD (sending the 772 to SAN to fend off AS and adding YYC to counter WS), that tells me that they could be gearing up for an expansion. They haven't bothered to put up much of a fight for several years at IAD, so it tells me that there's potentially an increased importance for IAD to their strategy. Time will tell.

Altimeter2992 wrote:

Another option I would suggest is an extension of DC Metro line to BWI

Does the DC Metro really need to cover this route? MARC runs 25 times a day between Union Station and BWI, and Amtrak runs the route 15 times a day on the Northeast Regional and 4 times a day on the Acela. I'd say it's pretty well served.

vatveng wrote:

Altimeter2992 wrote:

Another option I would suggest is an extension of DC Metro line to BWI

Does the DC Metro really need to cover this route? MARC runs 25 times a day between Union Station and BWI, and Amtrak runs the route 15 times a day on the Northeast Regional and 4 times a day on the Acela. I'd say it's pretty well served.

It has been studied in the past. I think that was mainly before they had added weekend service. Theory was connect rapid transit at BWI between Metro and the Baltimore light rail while also serving Fort Meade that does not have direct transit right now. Might be nice to have more direct service at the terminal instead of the bus over to the Amtrak/Marc station too.

I just saw this and didn't see it posted in here.. In 2022 DCA set a record for traffic surpassing 2019 numbers.. I can't think of any other major US airport that has accomplished this.. I'm presently surprised, I wonder how much more traffic they can push through, as it's still mostly a 1 runway airport..

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/report-reag ... rd-in-2022

DCA350 wrote:

I just saw this and didn't see it posted in here.. In 2022 DCA set a record for traffic surpassing 2019 numbers.. I can't think of any other major US airport that has accomplished this.. I'm presently surprised, I wonder how much more traffic they can push through, as it's still mostly a 1 runway airport..

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/report-reag ... rd-in-2022

The answer is that they're back to pushing more traffic through than it can handle. DCA is having to go into airborne holding multiple times a day now like clockwork, and it's because of the new concourse. Unless they thin out the banks or convert them into rolling banks (which they won't), this is going to be a seriously rough summer. How they built a concourse without recognizing the massive disruption it would cause is beyond me.

atcsundevil wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

I just saw this and didn't see it posted in here.. In 2022 DCA set a record for traffic surpassing 2019 numbers.. I can't think of any other major US airport that has accomplished this.. I'm presently surprised, I wonder how much more traffic they can push through, as it's still mostly a 1 runway airport..

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/report-reag ... rd-in-2022

The answer is that they're back to pushing more traffic through than it can handle. DCA is having to go into airborne holding multiple times a day now like clockwork, and it's because of the new concourse. Unless they thin out the banks or convert them into rolling banks (which they won't), this is going to be a seriously rough summer. How they built a concourse without recognizing the massive disruption it would cause is beyond me.

You're certainly the expert in regards to this and I totally agree. When your already close to capacity I don't understand adding more RJs into the mix.. Upgauging should be the answer but my guess is congress wants those small cities to have access to DCA instead of IAD..

DCA350 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

I just saw this and didn't see it posted in here.. In 2022 DCA set a record for traffic surpassing 2019 numbers.. I can't think of any other major US airport that has accomplished this.. I'm presently surprised, I wonder how much more traffic they can push through, as it's still mostly a 1 runway airport..

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/report-reag ... rd-in-2022

The answer is that they're back to pushing more traffic through than it can handle. DCA is having to go into airborne holding multiple times a day now like clockwork, and it's because of the new concourse. Unless they thin out the banks or convert them into rolling banks (which they won't), this is going to be a seriously rough summer. How they built a concourse without recognizing the massive disruption it would cause is beyond me.

You're certainly the expert in regards to this and I totally agree. When your already close to capacity I don't understand adding more RJs into the mix.. Upgauging should be the answer but my guess is congress wants those small cities to have access to DCA instead of IAD..

To be fair to AA, they have upgauged a bunch: there used to be a ton of 50 seaters, and those are all gone now in favor of CR7/E17X. That’s more people on the same number of frames.

But on a larger level, swapping a CRJ to HPN for an A321 to PHX (or DFW, if we need to stay within perimeter) wouldn’t help congestion. It’d make it worse, especially on the taxiways. It’d also make the runways worse, as a decent number of RJs use the other runways if conditions are right.

The new concourse is great in many ways. Getting planes to and from the runways ain’t one, though.

How does the new concourse cause more delays?

The number of slots at DCA is unchanged from 2019. I’m genuinely curious.

FlyPNS1 wrote:

How does the new concourse cause more delays?

The number of slots at DCA is unchanged from 2019. I’m genuinely curious.

What I've been told is that the new concourse causes a pinch point. The taxiway gets blocked when an aircraft pushes, and there's no where else to send them. Adding gates simply took away from available asphalt on an airfield already short on ramp and taxiway space, but in particular having it so close to the end of the runway is causing problems, especially with the A321. They've tried increasing the amount of miles in trail given to approach so that there are more and larger gaps in arrivals to accommodate, but it hasn't made any difference. Even on good weather days, I would estimate that DCA goes into holding three times a day on average, which is rivaling (if not exceeding) the frequency at which EWR and LGA require airborne holding. Typically it's short lived, but it's genuinely like clockwork. At the end of every push, it's sort of assumed that the last two or three will turn, and it's all because of surface congestion.

jetblastdubai wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

What I've been told is that the new concourse causes a pinch point. The taxiway gets blocked when an aircraft pushes, and there's no where else to send them. Adding gates simply took away from available asphalt on an airfield already short on ramp and taxiway space, but in particular having it so close to the end of the runway is causing problems, especially with the A321.

Wouldn't this only be an issue if DCA is using RWY 15 for departures? I was under the impression that 1/19 were the usual runways and the shorter runways were only used by the occasional GA A/C when it could help expedite them out.

Regardless, it appears that there are 5 gates that push on taxiway N and block the only access to RWY 15. Couldn't the tower get a little creative and require these aircraft to push back and momentarily block TXY N but keep the push going until the planes are in the alley, facing east, either to the north or south of the concourse. If turbojet A/C are forced into airborne holding because an RJ is blocking a taxiway, something is wrong.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ronal ... 0vMDE4c3Ey

They do primarily use 1/19. I don't know exactly why it's an issue, because I'm not a tower guy, but I do know that it's been a major complication since it opened.

atcsundevil wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

What I've been told is that the new concourse causes a pinch point. The taxiway gets blocked when an aircraft pushes, and there's no where else to send them. Adding gates simply took away from available asphalt on an airfield already short on ramp and taxiway space, but in particular having it so close to the end of the runway is causing problems, especially with the A321.

Wouldn't this only be an issue if DCA is using RWY 15 for departures? I was under the impression that 1/19 were the usual runways and the shorter runways were only used by the occasional GA A/C when it could help expedite them out.

Regardless, it appears that there are 5 gates that push on taxiway N and block the only access to RWY 15. Couldn't the tower get a little creative and require these aircraft to push back and momentarily block TXY N but keep the push going until the planes are in the alley, facing east, either to the north or south of the concourse. If turbojet A/C are forced into airborne holding because an RJ is blocking a taxiway, something is wrong.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ronal ... 0vMDE4c3Ey

They do primarily use 1/19. I don't know exactly why it's an issue, because I'm not a tower guy, but I do know that it's been a major complication since it opened.

I'm not an ATC at all, much less a tower guy, but my anecdotal experience has been that the new pier tends to block or congest what used to be a second taxi-hold route to and from the north end of 1/19. Instead of having a hold area across 15 that allowed a taxi via Sierra and November to avoid congestion on Kilo/Juliet when going to what are now the C and D gates, pretty much everything needs to flow on the latter two taxiways - and especially Juliet - parallel to 1/19 because of all the RJ traffic pushing out onto the ramp around the Kilo/November intersection.

Worse, the new E pier is located where planes used to sit and wait when the holding pad right near 1/19 is full. Without that available, they sit on the ramp causing further congestion.

Again, just anecdotal, but things do appear to get a little messy around the end of E. I've had to wait a few times for a decent amount of time when coming into gates on the north side of the E pier as well, suggesting this isn't purely an issue for southbound arrival flow.

A lot of circling issues come about because of VIP movements. POTUS was flying in Marine 1 last night which shut things down for a good 30 minutes.

washingtonflyer wrote:

A lot of circling issues come about because of VIP movements. POTUS was flying in Marine 1 last night which shut things down for a good 30 minutes.

I'm not referring to those. I'm referring to volume related holding. Volume related holding has been happening at least two to three times per day for months now. It happened frequently before covid, but not as often and not as predictable.

Altimeter2992 wrote:

BWI could possibly get more passenger(just shooting in the dark here) if they have an expansion of MARC service from BWI into Montgomery County and into parts of Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William counties. Another option I would suggest is an extension of DC Metro line to BWI with stops at Bowie State,(for students and faculty) NSA/Fort Mead (for federal workers) a stop a Arundel mills mall (general public) and terminate at BWI. But I would suggest the line be underground until after Bowie State because of the wildlife wetlands and be suspended on a small bridge and then go back underground at NSA/Fort Mead.

MARC-VRE through service is in the plan, but won't happen at least until the Long Bridge replacement project across Potomac is complete (about 2030 or so...).

As for DC Metro extension...I would rather spend the money building a people mover system in BWI between the MARC station (and rental car facility) and the terminal and surrounding area. Right now it is just a bunch of shuttle bus going all around the area. That would help MARC usage also along with an increase frequency on Penn Line (which should be easier than increasing frequency on other MARC line as Penn Line is more or less passenger-dedicated).

As for MoCo...well, there's already the ICC bus (Route 201) which, if they really want to "improve" service, increase the frequency from 1 hour to 30 mins. Not sure how much usage the bus line even sees right now anyway.

atcsundevil wrote:

DCA350 wrote:

I just saw this and didn't see it posted in here.. In 2022 DCA set a record for traffic surpassing 2019 numbers.. I can't think of any other major US airport that has accomplished this.. I'm presently surprised, I wonder how much more traffic they can push through, as it's still mostly a 1 runway airport..

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/report-reag ... rd-in-2022

The answer is that they're back to pushing more traffic through than it can handle. DCA is having to go into airborne holding multiple times a day now like clockwork, and it's because of the new concourse. Unless they thin out the banks or convert them into rolling banks (which they won't), this is going to be a seriously rough summer. How they built a concourse without recognizing the massive disruption it would cause is beyond me.

I've noticed a lot of DCA flights holding over my area on good weather days and wondered why. Now I know! Thanks

It looks like Dulles is set to add 3 new gates to the Z-concourse. My best guess would be to help with United's regional capacity post-2026 after the regional Concourse A closes or help United add more retaliatory frequencies .

https://www.mwaa.com/sites/mwaa.com/fil ... 2-2023.pdf

Can't tell if this is new, but it looks like IAD got another $20 million from the Feds for the Tier 2 concourse project, so almost $70 million total.

winstonavgeek wrote:

It looks like Dulles is set to add 3 new gates to the Z-concourse. My best guess would be to help with United's regional capacity post-2026 after the regional Concourse A closes or help United add more retaliatory frequencies .

https://www.mwaa.com/sites/mwaa.com/fil ... 2-2023.pdf

Glad to see this progressing sooner than expecting.

This has technically been planned for a while...as the original Z Gates are just Phase I. The original master plan called for an additional 5 gates on the opposite (western) end of the concourse.

Norse beginning LGW-IAD flights on June 1, 6x weekly
https://twitter.com/ishriona/status/163 ... rjKbbapciA

Hammmmmmer wrote:

Norse beginning LGW-IAD flights on June 1, 6x weekly
https://twitter.com/ishriona/status/163 ... rjKbbapciA

That's great news. Low-cost nonstop? Nearly daily? Depending on the price, I might give the UK a try this summer...

Unsure if this specific link has been posted (it could very well have been posted last fall), but it appears that MWAA is starting to dip their toes into a replacement of Terminal 1 (the banjo) at DCA

This document (https://www.mwaa.com/sites/mwaa.com/fil ... _Draft.pdf) makes it seem as the replacement will occur sooner, rather than later.

I saw a concept for the banjo's replacement a couple years back...it was somewhat shaped like a reverse "L" (much like the new LGA Terminal B concourses) and connected to the current terminal headhouse by a walkway.

USAirALB wrote:

Unsure if this specific link has been posted (it could very well have been posted last fall), but it appears that MWAA is starting to dip their toes into a replacement of Terminal 1 (the banjo) at DCA

This document (https://www.mwaa.com/sites/mwaa.com/fil ... _Draft.pdf) makes it seem as the replacement will occur sooner, rather than later.

I saw a concept for the banjo's replacement a couple years back...it was somewhat shaped like a reverse "L" (much like the new LGA Terminal B concourses) and connected to the current terminal headhouse by a walkway.

Is the banjo considered historic? Or is it just the front portion of the building?

Seems odd they’re going to replace it considering it got refurbished a few years ago.

ClassicSpotter wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Unsure if this specific link has been posted (it could very well have been posted last fall), but it appears that MWAA is starting to dip their toes into a replacement of Terminal 1 (the banjo) at DCA

This document (https://www.mwaa.com/sites/mwaa.com/fil ... _Draft.pdf) makes it seem as the replacement will occur sooner, rather than later.

I saw a concept for the banjo's replacement a couple years back...it was somewhat shaped like a reverse "L" (much like the new LGA Terminal B concourses) and connected to the current terminal headhouse by a walkway.

Is the banjo considered historic? Or is it just the front portion of the building?

Seems odd they’re going to replace it considering it got refurbished a few years ago.

IIRC, the only part of Terminal 1 that is considered historic is the historic lobby.

The refurbishment was mostly aesthetic...the banjo is still overcrowded and cramped, especially in the main circular gate area and in the interior hall (the banjo's neck). It also doesn't help that they've crammed retail outlets everywhere possible, and combined with the non-LED lightening and the low ceiling in some areas (especially in the neck), it somewhat reminds me of the old LGA CTB.

USAirALB wrote:

The refurbishment was mostly aesthetic...the banjo is still overcrowded and cramped, especially in the main circular gate area and in the interior hall (the banjo's neck). It also doesn't help that they've crammed retail outlets everywhere possible, and combined with the non-LED lightening and the low ceiling in some areas (especially in the neck), it somewhat reminds me of the old LGA CTB.

I second that assessment. Just flew out of there two weeks ago and everytime I do it amazes me that they went to all that work to build a new security screening area but all they did to the gate area was cram more crap in. With all the investment in the main terminals, including the Centurion and Capital One lounges opening (hopefully soon), I have got to think that the banjo's isolation spells it's ultimate demise.

MatthewTKS wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

The refurbishment was mostly aesthetic...the banjo is still overcrowded and cramped, especially in the main circular gate area and in the interior hall (the banjo's neck). It also doesn't help that they've crammed retail outlets everywhere possible, and combined with the non-LED lightening and the low ceiling in some areas (especially in the neck), it somewhat reminds me of the old LGA CTB.

I second that assessment. Just flew out of there two weeks ago and everytime I do it amazes me that they went to all that work to build a new security screening area but all they did to the gate area was cram more crap in. With all the investment in the main terminals, including the Centurion and Capital One lounges opening (hopefully soon), I have got to think that the banjo's isolation spells it's ultimate demise.

What is the goal or objective of historical preservation?. I believe its a form of communicating history to the next generations. (or to show the Aliens what we were up to before we became extinct) . But if its smack in the middle of an operations area as is DCA terminal A, you HAVE to let it go... There is no way you can effectively communicate with the world, that this was how an airport looked like back in the old days. Who will drive out to DCA just to roam around the historical area of the airport? (Maybe Architect students on their way to Rome)

Perhaps the architects could preserve a slice of it within a new building(?). Like buildings in Manhattan which have their exteriors preserved while a skyscraper rises from the interior.

blockski wrote:

there’s an opportunity to connect the secure areas with replacement gates for the banjo to the United B- gates that are within a portion of the historic terminal. You could envision a secure connection between all of them, while also getting a bit more space.

I've often wondered if an eventual Terminal 1/A Gate replacement would also include a replacement for B10-B14 (the United gates) to allow that portion of the terminal to be decommissioned. Those gates are pretty dumpy, and the area can be claustrophobic sometimes, especially when UA used the 753 on DCA-DEN/SFO.

Here's a refresher on supposed rendering of Terminal 1:



It's extremely hard to tell, but it looks like there is an entirely new headhouse and two-level terminal roadway as well.

USAirALB wrote:

blockski wrote:

there’s an opportunity to connect the secure areas with replacement gates for the banjo to the United B- gates that are within a portion of the historic terminal. You could envision a secure connection between all of them, while also getting a bit more space.

I've often wondered if an eventual Terminal 1/A Gate replacement would also include a replacement for B10-B14 (the United gates) to allow that portion of the terminal to be decommissioned. Those gates are pretty dumpy, and the area can be claustrophobic sometimes, especially when UA used the 753 on DCA-DEN/SFO.

Here's a refresher on supposed rendering of Terminal 1:



It's extremely hard to tell, but it looks like there is an entirely new headhouse and two-level terminal roadway as well.

I’d be curious to see how construction would work on a project like that. Based on those renderings, the two east side “banjo” gates would likely have to be shut down during construction (if it were all done in one phase) and considering how tight DCA is, it would be interesting to see play out. AC could probably cram in with UA in B (surprised they don’t already so AC pax can have access to the UA Club). Also curious if they’ll decide to connect the new A Gates with the rest of the Terminal 2 gates post security (although this would likely require the historic 1941 terminal lobby being moved post security).

If you've been to DFW recently, you could've seen the beautiful new high C gates are complete. These were modularly constructed off site and then moved into position. They're bright, airy, and were built very quickly.

https://youtu.be/3RJT7QLrGmE

Would IAD be a candidate for these too? I'm sure UA could part with a portion of C/D while they constructed and position a segment of new modular gates, and could piecemeal build in new gates until all of C/D is replaced? They do have room to expand Z if they need it and A/B seem to be far short of their capacity right?

The need to replace C/D seems a bit more urgent than the MWAA is playing at.

USAirALB wrote:

blockski wrote:

there’s an opportunity to connect the secure areas with replacement gates for the banjo to the United B- gates that are within a portion of the historic terminal. You could envision a secure connection between all of them, while also getting a bit more space.

I've often wondered if an eventual Terminal 1/A Gate replacement would also include a replacement for B10-B14 (the United gates) to allow that portion of the terminal to be decommissioned. Those gates are pretty dumpy, and the area can be claustrophobic sometimes, especially when UA used the 753 on DCA-DEN/SFO.

Here's a refresher on supposed rendering of Terminal 1:



It's extremely hard to tell, but it looks like there is an entirely new headhouse and two-level terminal roadway as well.

If the aim is to preserve the historical facade, then the only way to get a 2nd deck (arrivals) is to dig down...

blockski wrote:

KMCOFlyer wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

I've often wondered if an eventual Terminal 1/A Gate replacement would also include a replacement for B10-B14 (the United gates) to allow that portion of the terminal to be decommissioned. Those gates are pretty dumpy, and the area can be claustrophobic sometimes, especially when UA used the 753 on DCA-DEN/SFO.

Here's a refresher on supposed rendering of Terminal 1:



It's extremely hard to tell, but it looks like there is an entirely new headhouse and two-level terminal roadway as well.

I’d be curious to see how construction would work on a project like that. Based on those renderings, the two east side “banjo” gates would likely have to be shut down during construction (if it were all done in one phase) and considering how tight DCA is, it would be interesting to see play out. AC could probably cram in with UA in B (surprised they don’t already so AC pax can have access to the UA Club). Also curious if they’ll decide to connect the new A Gates with the rest of the Terminal 2 gates post security (although this would likely require the historic 1941 terminal lobby being moved post security).

I actually think it would be pretty simple for airplane gates. There’s a ton of room between current gate B10 and the banjo; more than enough to build most of a new concourse where you could then move those 9 existing banjo gates to the new concourse - and then demolish the banjo.

I’d think there’s a case to both link T1 and T2 behind security, and to expand the existing UA gate areas, which are quite cramped. Uniting UA and AC would be a nice benefit; there might also be some benefits of changing the gate locations to reduce a conflict between gates 14 and 16. Plus, it’s probably a lot easier to balance gate use if the entire terminal is connected behind security.

The historic terminal could be a great space if renovated nicely.

The phasing for the headhouse for check in and baggage claim is a lot trickier, I think.

Would passengers revolt if you sent them to B to collect bags? They have been spoiled for years by having their bags so close to the arriving gate. In a bigger complex such as IAD, IAH or ATL, the baggage carousel is a mile away...

MLIAA wrote:

If you've been to DFW recently, you could've seen the beautiful new high C gates are complete. These were modularly constructed off site and then moved into position. They're bright, airy, and were built very quickly.

https://youtu.be/3RJT7QLrGmE

Would IAD be a candidate for these too? I'm sure UA could part with a portion of C/D while they constructed and position a segment of new modular gates, and could piecemeal build in new gates until all of C/D is replaced? They do have room to expand Z if they need it and A/B seem to be far short of their capacity right?

The need to replace C/D seems a bit more urgent than the MWAA is playing at.

Cost immensely higher as compared to in-situ construction. I could be wrong. They did it due to lack of space and nearby staging. IAD still has the old staging area just outside South Entrance. The new concourse is not reducing gates during construction. In fact, I wonder what MWAA will do with the large gap that will eventually exist between A/B and the new concourse...?

stewartg wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

blockski wrote:

there’s an opportunity to connect the secure areas with replacement gates for the banjo to the United B- gates that are within a portion of the historic terminal. You could envision a secure connection between all of them, while also getting a bit more space.

I've often wondered if an eventual Terminal 1/A Gate replacement would also include a replacement for B10-B14 (the United gates) to allow that portion of the terminal to be decommissioned. Those gates are pretty dumpy, and the area can be claustrophobic sometimes, especially when UA used the 753 on DCA-DEN/SFO.

Here's a refresher on supposed rendering of Terminal 1:



It's extremely hard to tell, but it looks like there is an entirely new headhouse and two-level terminal roadway as well.

If the aim is to preserve the historical facade, then the only way to get a 2nd deck (arrivals) is to dig down...

There’s already a lower level roadway below the Terminal A/1 structure which use to house the taxi staging area for Terminal 2. That could always be converted into a lower level arrivals roadway for a redeveloped Terminal 1 headhouse but the roadway itself is not very wide and there’s not much room to widen it without digging more.

United finally upgauging DCA-DEN starting March 26 from A320/737-800 to 757-200 with old lieflat first class. Looks like it will revert to 737 after spring break period. DCA-SFO continues to be 737-800 for foreseeable future

KMCOFlyer wrote:

stewartg wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

I've often wondered if an eventual Terminal 1/A Gate replacement would also include a replacement for B10-B14 (the United gates) to allow that portion of the terminal to be decommissioned. Those gates are pretty dumpy, and the area can be claustrophobic sometimes, especially when UA used the 753 on DCA-DEN/SFO.

Here's a refresher on supposed rendering of Terminal 1:



It's extremely hard to tell, but it looks like there is an entirely new headhouse and two-level terminal roadway as well.

If the aim is to preserve the historical facade, then the only way to get a 2nd deck (arrivals) is to dig down...

There’s already a lower level roadway below the Terminal A/1 structure which use to house the taxi staging area for Terminal 2. That could always be converted into a lower level arrivals roadway for a redeveloped Terminal 1 headhouse but the roadway itself is not very wide and there’s not much room to widen it without digging more.

Turn the whole circle into an underground bagg claim. But then you see how form dominates function. Billions of extra taxpayer money just to preserve the facade of the old building.

Currently glancing FR24 (looking at Dulles) and noticing planes are landing on Runway 30. Quite rare ! Is this due to heavy winds ?

iadadd wrote:

Currently glancing FR24 (looking at Dulles) and noticing planes are landing on Runway 30. Quite rare ! Is this due to heavy winds ?

Given the latest metar "KIAD 142052Z 30029G42KT 10SM BKN055 03/M09 A2991 RMK AO2 PK WND 29047/2024 SLP131 T00331089 53003", yeah, landing on 30 makes sense. Blowing 29 gusting to 42 right down that runway, so pretty much the only viable choice right now.

iadadd wrote:

Currently glancing FR24 (looking at Dulles) and noticing planes are landing on Runway 30. Quite rare ! Is this due to heavy winds ?

A few times in the winter, winds favor the crosswind runway. It results in a massive disruption when it occurs during the afternoon bank. Arrivals are forced onto one runway shared with departures, as opposed to simultaneous dual or occasionally triple parallel approaches on the 1/19s with 30 used for departures. The arrival rate drops by about 50-60% and almost always requires airborne holding and ground stops. Typically it happens fewer than 10 days or so per year, but it's enough of a disruption that the construction of a parallel crosswind runway is in the airport's master plan. It will also potentially allow for dual stream departures, so it would be an operational asset outside of days like today.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca ... 099/?amp=1


FAA investigating “close call” at DCA

IAD landing 30 again due to winds. There's a ground stop published and the arrival rate has dropped to 32 per hour. It's likely to be an issue throughout the day.

atcsundevil wrote:

IAD landing 30 again due to winds. There's a ground stop published and the arrival rate has dropped to 32 per hour. It's likely to be an issue throughout the day.

Yes, another windy day out here. Maybe the wind has blown all the trash bins from the Broadlands across the other runways.

I am glad to be off for the next week, with winds slowing things down at Dulles…

stewartg wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

IAD landing 30 again due to winds. There's a ground stop published and the arrival rate has dropped to 32 per hour. It's likely to be an issue throughout the day.

Yes, another windy day out here. Maybe the wind has blown all the trash bins from the Broadlands across the other runways.

Mine actually ended up across the street We've certainly had our fair share of windy days this winter.

Looks like a number of EWR bound flights are circling near BWI. Is BWI a possible diversion for EWR? That seems like a pretty significant distance.

tax1k wrote:

Looks like a number of EWR bound flights are circling near BWI. Is BWI a possible diversion for EWR? That seems like a pretty significant distance.

BWI has certainly taken NYC diversions in the past. Although winds here are 30017G30KT so it's not *too* much better.

BWIAirport wrote:

tax1k wrote:

Looks like a number of EWR bound flights are circling near BWI. Is BWI a possible diversion for EWR? That seems like a pretty significant distance.

BWI has certainly taken NYC diversions in the past. Although winds here are 30017G30KT so it's not *too* much better.

I'm wondering if it's more planes just being put into hold patterns well back in the STAR that are near BWI.

atcsundevil wrote:

IAD landing 30 again due to winds. There's a ground stop published and the arrival rate has dropped to 32 per hour. It's likely to be an issue throughout the day.

I work a few days per week out of our Reston office, and my office faces the southeast. I looked up earlier this morning and got to see EK231 on final lower than usual over Reston. What a sight!

atcsundevil wrote:

stewartg wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

IAD landing 30 again due to winds. There's a ground stop published and the arrival rate has dropped to 32 per hour. It's likely to be an issue throughout the day.

Yes, another windy day out here. Maybe the wind has blown all the trash bins from the Broadlands across the other runways.

Mine actually ended up across the street We've certainly had our fair share of windy days this winter.

Yesterday was worse than today. My sons High School JV lacrosse season started last night, and we spent close to 90 minutes outside in the cold and heavy winds last night.