DFW Terminals A, B, C, E To Get $45 Mil. Facelift

AAtakeMeAway · Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:47 am

http://video.nbc5i.com/player/?id=116831

It's about time, huh? Smile

DfwRevolution · Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:02 am

Thank you natural gas! Those Barnett Shale fields will produce for decades and with DFW receiving 25% of profits earned by Chesapeake, the airport will be receiving windfalls for many years to come.

bartond · Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:18 am

Maybe DFW can pay some international airlines to stopover at Terminal D for a few hours on their way to ORD, LAX, JFK so we can see some cool looking birds every once in a while.

ssides · Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:23 am

B and E need it much more than A and C, but it's great that they're all getting a makeover.

AA787823 · Fri Jun 08, 2007 7:25 am

When you condiser the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state.

kc135topboom · Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:16 am

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):
When you condiser the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state.

You are right about they should spend more than $45M for the terminals.

But, at least the #3 airport in the WORLD isn't located in California, then it will really be trashy, and taxes sky high.

Trashy airports, have you been to LAX lately?

CIDFlyer · Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:26 am

Good for DFW, I have always enjoyed going through there, although the other AA terminals do pale in comparison to Terminal D. Hopefully they can brighten up the rest of the terminals

JayDavis · Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:53 am

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):

You're just jealous you weren't born a Texan and you are not a Texan. Smile

DFW Rules !!

IAH is okay............... Hey to Thomas60. Smile

Okie · Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:54 am

Chesapeake coughed up $115M on the front end of the lease to DFW plus revenue from the oil and gas produced.
I do not know the exactly how Dallas and Ft Worth spent the rest of the lease or how they plan to spend the rest of the revenue produced. It does not seem like the cities are planning on putting much back into the airport.

Okie

JayDub · Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:03 am

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):
When you condiser the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state.

"...You may all go to Hell and I will go to Texas." - Davy Crockett Wink

I miss home...and the greatness that is DFW.

stxbohn · Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:14 am

Quoting JayDavis (Reply 7):
You're just jealous you weren't born a Texan and you are not a Texan.

Hells ya to my fellow Texans. I started life back there in the Big D. You know what they say...

"Born American, Texan by the grace of God"

Brooks

airstatdfw · Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:20 pm

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):
When you condiser the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state.

You are right $45m is not a lot, but I don't know about trashy airport I have seen many other airports worse than DFW. I will have to disagree on the state also. I'm glad the other terminals are getting an upgrade though.

AirStatDFW

thomasphoto60 · Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:37 pm

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):
It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state.

Wanna back up your comments about my adopted state, or are you just the type who gets his jollies out of seeing what sort of reactions you get by making moronic comments?

Guys, my brother who lives in Santa Monica makes similar comments and he has never visited Texas. Take what this mook says with a grain-of-salt.

Quoting JayDavis (Reply 7):
DFW Rules !!

IAH is okay............... Hey to Thomas60. Smile

Dream on Jay-Jay, IAH IS KING..... and don't you forget it pal! box

.

Thomas

Boeing7E7 · Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:19 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Trashy airports, have you been to LAX lately?

No doubt. What a dump. That place needs to be completely rebuilt.

AASuper80 · Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:35 pm

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):
When you condiser the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state.

WHAT??? DFW is the AA fortress!!!! Where else can you see 75 Super80's at one time? Smile

And, Dallas is a great city!

N276AASTT · Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:54 pm

DFW, Texas = Trashy! ???? What a bunch of haters!

Yeah $45 million isn't a lot of money when considering the sheer size of each of these terminals, but hey, it's better than nothing right! I think it's great. More power to 'em. DFW has come so far these last few years with the new Terminal D and the Skylink coming online. Keep the momentum going.

pitops · Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:59 pm

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 13):
No doubt. What a dump. That place needs to be completely rebuilt.

I second that motion!! That place is a hell hole anymore. A city with that much traffic and all those international flights, you would think it would be alot nicer facility.

drerx7 · Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:17 pm

WHO WAS TALKING DOWN ON TEXAS?!!!! box

Drerx7 -- Houstonian

Coal · Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:20 pm

Quoting AASuper80 (Reply 14):
Dallas is a great city

Doubt it's as good as Hongkong, Shanghai, Sydney, London, or New York Yeah sure

You Texans should get out a little more. Houston is not too bad though. That should be a good start.

Wrt to the airport, I've only seen pics of Terminal D and it looks quite nice. How much money did they spend on it? Hope they can make the others look half as good.

Cheers
Coal

nosedive · Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:09 am

Quoting STXBohn (Reply 10):
"Born American, Texan by the grace of God"

...and clogging up Colorado's ski slopes.

Quoting Drerx7 (Reply 17):
WHO WAS TALKING DOWN ON TEXAS?!!!!

Coloradans

[Edited 2007-06-09 17:10:16]

drerx7 · Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:31 am

Quoting Nosedive (Reply 19):
...and clogging up Colorado's ski slopes.

LOL touche touche

UAL747 · Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:21 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 18):
Doubt it's as good as Hongkong, Shanghai, Sydney, London, or New York You Texans should get out a little more. Houston is not too bad though. That should be a good start.

Dallas is by FAR more "upscale" than Houston.

LHR and JFK (most part) are by far worse than DFW. I was so excited to fly to JFK and LHR my first time and I was amazed at how run down parts of those places are. Especially T3 at LHR and several of the terminals at JFK. What a dump. The only really good thing about these airports is the traffic. DFW can be a bit boring.

Not sure how old SYD is, but HKG and Pudong are new build airports. (Within the last 10 years). They are bound to be better than DFW is in any shape, way, or form. In order to acheive that with DFW you'd have to completely tear down the old terminals and rebuild them to match Terminal D. Not saying that I wouldn't advocate this, but it would cost in the BILLIONS of $$, not to mention it would cut capacity at DFW, which at this point in time, would be a bad thing considering it's one of the worlds busiest airports.

UAL

Delta767300ER · Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:53 am

Quote:
When you condiser the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state.

Thats an interesting and incorrect comment, especially since your username has "AA" in it and DFW is their largest hub and HQ. DFW isnt trashy but it is kind of bland and needs updated. Not every place in Texas is trashy. I agree though that they need a lot more than $40 million.

-Delta767300ER

UAL747 · Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:01 am

Per the video:

It looks like only a few things are really going to be updated in the old terminals. The bathrooms are number one priority, then the flight information screens.

Considering the size of all those terminals, $45M will soon run thin.

Again, for what some of you think should be done, we're talking Billions of Dollars. Even more than what they spend on Terminal D and the Hyatt.

UAL

pitops · Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:06 am

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 23):
It looks like only a few things are really going to be updated in the old terminals. The bathrooms are number one priority, then the flight information screens.

The new information screens will be a great upgrade to the airport. PIT got their upgrade a year or so ago and it made a heck of a difference.

contrails · Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:21 am

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):
When you condiser the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state.

If you want to air your opinion about an airport this is the right place to do it. Having spent a lot of time at DFW I'll disagree with you, but I'll respect your right to air your opinion.

This is not, however, the proper forum to air your opinion of an entire state. You should post such comments elsewhere.

dallasnewark · Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:32 am

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):
When you condiser the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state

And that is coming from a Califronian fudgepacker. LAX, SJC, SMF aren't trashy? Smile

I still wonder how come forums mods haven't deleted his post, I see a double standard here

iad51fl · Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:18 pm

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):
When you condiser the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state.

Been to LGA?

DFW13L · Tue Jun 12, 2007 3:34 pm

Quoting PITops (Reply 24):
The new information screens will be a great upgrade to the airport. PIT got their upgrade a year or so ago and it made a heck of a difference.

All the flight information screens at DFW are already updated...real nice LCD sets. They look great. There is sill an old one here and there by airlines that want to keep them, such as UA, NW, CO. But throughout the airport, not just AA gates, and in the lobbies waiting for parking and rental car shuttles, there are new gate info displays, showing all airline flights.

N1120A · Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:00 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

But, at least the #3 airport in the WORLD isn't located in California,

No, it is located in London. Not to mention that DFW, despite being a mega hub for the world's largest airline, gets fewer passengers than O&D dominated LAX

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
then it will really be trashy, and taxes sky high.

I love how the rest of the country loves to spend California's money and still talk like that sarcastic

Quoting Thomasphoto60 (Reply 12):
Guys, my brother who lives in Santa Monica makes similar comments and he has never visited Texas. Take what this mook says with a grain-of-salt.

I have been to Texas 6 times, and I can say that was 5 too many.

B7X7 · Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:45 pm

I was in DFW in October, stopping over between LGA and CZM. I have to say Terminal D is a beautiful terminal spacious, and well presented. Terminal C was run down, and needs work, but does not need as much work at the CTB at LGA, where the celing was falling down, and the whole things just needs pulling down (i know that wont happen becasue of lack of space).

$45 million is not that on 4 terminal, if you look at Heathrow they are spening much more just on Terminal 3 alone.

commavia · Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:50 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
Not to mention that DFW, despite being a mega hub for the world's largest airline, gets fewer passengers than O&D dominated LAX

Well, the fact that the L.A. area (without the Valley) is more than double the population of the D/FW Metroplex, and with the valley is almost three times as large, and yet D/FW only handles less than one million fewer annual passengers speaks volumes. Sure, the L.A. area also has BUR, ONT, LGB, and SNA, and perhaps you could say PMD, but nonetheless, DFW is a huge, huge airport, and growing (while LAX is shrinking, by the way).

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
I have been to Texas 6 times, and I can say that was 5 too many.

Why do these conversations seem (all too often) to degenerate to this? First off, you are wrong about Texas: it is a wonderful place with wonderful people, a low cost of living, and an almost unbeatable quality of life for the money. Secondly, even if you do feel the way you do about America's fastest-growing retirement spot, one of its fastest-growing states, and one of its least expensive states to live, why share it like that? It really isn't necessary, doesn't elevate any discussion (on this civil aviation board), and just pisses people off for absolutely no reason.

lucianflyboy · Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:51 pm

Quoting AA787823 (Reply 4):
When you consider the size of DFW, $45m is not much. It will still be a trashy airport, in a trashy state

Hey! Don't mess with Texas biggrin

Meanwhile, thank goodness for the face lift. I was lucky to work in Term A back when it was the international terminal. C and B always depressed me. The airport has no class, no 'wow'. yuck

It's just big, like they say, everything is bigger in Texas (I beg to differ) On the other hand, terminal D is beautiful. All the light really makes it feel airy, clean and crisp. I still think they could have placed some concessions on the non-secure side.

Born Caribbean, adopted Texan. praise

dallasnewark · Tue Jun 12, 2007 11:49 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
I have been to Texas 6 times, and I can say that was 5 too many.

FOR SALE: Antique French rifle, never fired from, only dropped twice

bartond · Wed Jun 13, 2007 2:23 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
I have been to Texas 6 times, and I can say that was 5 too many.

Just curious, where did you go? I'm not here to defend my home state but I always love to hear people bash a state that's over 1/3 the size of Europe but these people often times drive straight from an airport to a boring suburb or other undesirable area for work and that's all they see.

If you went all over and visited Austin, drove through the hill country, saw Big Bend and/or visited Marfa and those cool little desert art towns, saw the nicer/cool parts of Houston/Dallas/Ft Worth, and stopped by a few small towns on your trip to get some down-home hospitality and still didn't like it, then sorry for your bad luck.

kc135topboom · Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:20 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):

But, at least the #3 airport in the WORLD isn't located in California,

No, it is located in London. Not to mention that DFW, despite being a mega hub for the world's largest airline, gets fewer passengers than O&D dominated LAX

No, you are wrong, sir. ATL is #1, ORD, #2, DFW #3 LHR #7, LAX #6 all based on landing and T/O traffic. For passengers (not O&D) count, DFW had 62M in 2006, and it will increase for 2007, second behind ATL, with ORD #3 by a slight margin (ORD will pass DFW again this year). DFW's O&D is around 40M, about 5M behind LAX.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
then it will really be trashy, and taxes sky high.

I love how the rest of the country loves to spend California's money and still talk like that sarcastic

I lived in California for 9 years. The one word I use to discribe CA is it "SUCKS".

Quoting Thomasphoto60 (Reply 12):
Guys, my brother who lives in Santa Monica makes similar comments and he has never visited Texas. Take what this mook says with a grain-of-salt.

I have been to Texas 6 times, and I can say that was 5 too many.

You are more than welcome to STAY HOME.

nosedive · Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:33 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 35):

You are more than welcome to STAY HOME.

Can you guys stop moving to CO then stirthepot

CIDFlyer · Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:34 am

Quoting Commavia (Reply 31):
Why do these conversations seem (all too often) to degenerate to this? First off, you are wrong about Texas: it is a wonderful place with wonderful people, a low cost of living, and an almost unbeatable quality of life for the money. Secondly, even if you do feel the way you do about America's fastest-growing retirement spot, one of its fastest-growing states, and one of its least expensive states to live, why share it like that? It really isn't necessary, doesn't elevate any discussion (on this civil aviation board), and just pisses people off for absolutely no reason.

Amen! Welcome to my respected user list

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net