While this has been a topic that has been discussed from time to time, the process has started once again, this time for real here in SLC: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2007-10-01-slc-growth_N.htm
For an airport that has a current design capacity for 12 million passengers and is now effectively handling 21-23 million, I think it is about time to do something!
A more local view on this with local comments can be found here:
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=1895255
Some shots of SLC now:


Is SLC really ready for this? If so how much is enough or too much?

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Thread starter): Is SLC really ready for this? If so how much is enough or too much?

The philosophy should always be to build too much rather than too little.. cause you can always not use it.. but it's a pain in the butt to need it and not have it..

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1): The philosophy should always be to build too much rather than too little.. cause you can always not use it.. but it's a pain in the butt to need it and not have it..

But you also have to be careful not to build a facility so big that its costs drive carriers away. Obviously, you want to allow for growth, but you also don't want to end up like PIT or CVG with so many gates you are forced to mothball chunks of the airport.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1): cause you can always not use it..

I'd argue the reverse, because you still have to pay for it.

Hmm, a design imitating ATL and DEN, using parallel concourses connected by an APM. I wonder if they will use the same Bombardier trains that ATL and DEN use (the CX-100). The CX-100 is also found at SFO, IAH, and TPA.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1): The philosophy should always be to build too much rather than too little.. cause you can always not use it.. but it's a pain in the butt to need it and not have it..

I would agree with the others with the sentiment that you don't want to build something so expansive that it costs too much to support. Rather building a facility that is designed to be expanded, both airside and landside seems the most prudent choice. You build a facility to handle a certain capacity and include expansion to potential to a higher level. In short you need to future proof the building.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 4): Hmm, a design imitating ATL and DEN, using parallel concourses connected by an APM.

I think ATL in particular, though while lacking in some areas, have proven to be a very good design some 25 years after it first opened. It is no wonder that many major new terminal designs have followed this model.

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 5): I would agree with the others with the sentiment that you don't want to build something so expansive that it costs too much to support.

I concur.. However.. I would hate to see them build something for X amount of gates.. and when it is open.. all X gates are taken in less than 2 years.. instead.. I should see X + 5% or X+10% gates so at least there is some room for further growth beyond the project.. I don't mean build a 100 gate concourse. that WOULD be crazy..  

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 2): But you also have to be careful not to build a facility so big that its costs drive carriers away. Obviously, you want to allow for growth, but you also don't want to end up like PIT or CVG with so many gates you are forced to mothball chunks of the airport.

PIT has been the obvious paranoia that has influenced developments at SLC. I think that STL is more of a mothballed facility situation than CVG:
STL in 1995:

STL in 2007:

Did they really need that 4th runway with AA swallowing TWA and scaling back STL?
I like the design ideas of ATL and DEN, provided there is a large CRJ and other regional aircraft concourse as well as a MUCH larger International facility with more FIS gates etc...

OMG.. I never saw the actual location of the runway before.. what in the WORLD? who would have thought to put that runway all the way in the corner like that.. that was just bad planning..

the way that is set up.. they could open an entirely new terminal just for the new runway and it wouldn't be in the way of the other ones.. LOL..

okay.. let me stop.. that was mean.. my apologies to the St Louis-ners? St Louisers? St. Loosers? St Louisianers? What in the world do you call people from St Louis?

What about extending 16L/34R for the new DL flight to CDG. Issues have been discussed regarding getting a 763 out of there on a warm summer afternoon without weight restrictions. Since any expansions won't be done by the time DL starts the flight, what are the plans? Do they plan on operating at MTOW?

The STL expansion was an ill-timed nightmare. When TWA was kicking, they needed it badly. When TWA ceased to exist, they had too much capacity the way it was... but the expansion was already underway.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6): I concur.. However.. I would hate to see them build something for X amount of gates.. and when it is open.. all X gates are taken in less than 2 years.. instead.. I should see X + 5% or X+10% gates so at least there is some room for further growth beyond the project.. I don't mean build a 100 gate concourse. that WOULD be crazy..

I think SLC planners should take a few clues from LAS, PHX and now DEN. DEN in particular built and designed the DIA facility for expansion. SLC is in a great position since they can and will eventually build more runways, not to mention lengthen 1 or two of the existing ones.

Quoting Mason (Reply 9): What about extending 16L/34R for the new DL flight to CDG.

This is clearly in the plans, and I wouldn't be surprised if they started on construction of this once they have a definite new master-plan in place for the overall terminal facilities.

the bottom line is cost. SLC right now will live or die based on what DL does and DL will not foot the bill for a billion dollar facility. SLC has low passenger costs and DL will not agree to anything that upsets that.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13): the bottom line is cost. SLC right now will live or die based on what DL does and DL will not foot the bill for a billion dollar facility. SLC has low passenger costs and DL will not agree to anything that upsets that.

I don't think you'll see something that costs airlines the fee levels of a YYZ, MIA, SEA, DFW or what DEN's levels used to be. But costs going up slightly to somewhat are something they are expecting. If it is the levels of the latter 4 I mention, forget it, since WN will join DL in opposing it (which is what happened back in '98). But DL knows some costs will have to increase if SLC is to be a viable hub for them in the future as does WN. I would think most carriers would look at the $6-$9/per passenger range as being cost acceptable nowadays (DEN is about $9/per head).

After working for OO at SLC I feel that there is definate room for growth and development, but saying that I will also put in my two cents by stating that the longer they wait deciding whether or not they want to actually build the more crowded it gets.

Now that I work for US in PHX I know that one of the problems we deal with when it comes to delayed SLC flights is that there will be times when two or three flights will be arriving in SLC at the same time and we have to get creative to find spots to put them all in.

I just hope that SLC doesn't try so hard to play with the "big boys" and grow too fast for the future. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1): The philosophy should always be to build too much rather than too little.. cause you can always not use it.. but it's a pain in the butt to need it and not have it..

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 2): But you also have to be careful not to build a facility so big that its costs drive carriers away. Obviously, you want to allow for growth, but you also don't want to end up like PIT or CVG with so many gates you are forced to mothball chunks of the airport.

FlyPNS1 is correct. There is a fine line between building enough building enough for future expansion and too much where the additional costs become an excess burden. As others have pointed out, the best thing is to build something scalable in size. This means leaving open space, cleared areas, and pre-designing the expansion into the initial design without actually constructing it during the first phase.

As said there have been a number of airports that have been burned by overbuilding. The "if you build it and they will come" philosphy generally does not apply to airports. There has to be the demand and the need. Some of the most successful new/expanded/rebuilt airports have been when the old facility was way beyond capacity. Places like DEN & DTW particularly.

DTW actually presents a unique constrast of conflicting purposes. NW partnered with Wayne County to construct the NW Worldgateway and NW themselves invested a majority of the money into the project and was the overall project manager. This was intended to be NW's showpiece facility - and NW was willing to pay the money for the "extras."

The North Terminal, which is currently under construction to replace the Smith terminal is the opposite - it is meant to house all of the non-Skyteam carriers including the LCC's - NK, WN, FL, F9, etc. The tenants of the North terminal did not want any of the "extras" and they explicitly told the county "Yes we need a new terminal, but we do not want costs to substancially increase." So in the county had to build the best they could with the cost structure the tenants were willing to support. Many airlines are taking fewer gates in the new facility because of the increased rent. The biggest issue was that costruction & raw material costs skyrocketed over the past 5 years so the money wasn't able to go as far. Hence why the structure is a lot more "bare-bones."

Airports have to balance the needs of all combined and build something that makes financial sense.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 8): OMG.. I never saw the actual location of the runway before.. what in the WORLD? who would have thought to put that runway all the way in the corner like that.. that was just bad planning.. the way that is set up.. they could open an entirely new terminal just for the new runway and it wouldn't be in the way of the other ones.. LOL..

STL was left with few choices - with the existing terminal & I-70 on the south and the large Boeing/ McD complex on the north side of the field. As others have said, the additional runway was badly needed in the TWA days. Unfortunetely projects take years/decades to complete and all of that was well underway before TWA was merged into AA and then AA pulled the plug on the hub.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 16): The North Terminal, which is currently under construction to replace the Smith terminal is the opposite

A small fact, but it will also replace the Berry Terminal IIRC

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 13): the bottom line is cost. SLC right now will live or die based on what DL does and DL will not foot the bill for a billion dollar facility. SLC has low passenger costs and DL will not agree to anything that upsets that.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 14): don't think you'll see something that costs airlines the fee levels of a YYZ, MIA, SEA, DFW or what DEN's levels used to be. But costs going up slightly to somewhat are something they are expecting. If it is the levels of the latter 4 I mention, forget it, since WN will join DL in opposing it (which is what happened back in '98). But DL knows some costs will have to increase if SLC is to be a viable hub for them in the future as does WN. I would think most carriers would look at the $6-$9/per passenger range as being cost acceptable nowadays (DEN is about $9/per head).

I have commented on this for many years. SLC has the opportunity to effect the EK movement in the North American hemisphere. SLC is unique in that it is equal distant to many major destinations as is Dubai. With the event of the 787 SLC can be a major player internationally. The item worth noting is if the management of the SLC International Airport can earn their pay and place SLC within its potential or will they play it safe. The trick is to get more than Delta on board. Maybe they should be talking with EK and a few others? If they could get a major player whom wanted to avoid the delays of the West and East coasts while having direct access to the Western USA and indirect access to the East, watch out Delta. I have been involved with and taken part in this analysis for airlines outside Delta. SLC has to decide if they will be Delta's slave of venture out. They have an excellent opportunity knocking at their door, will they answer or hide behind Delta? Delta has a lot to loose also. If someone comes in their back door with the new open skies what will happen to them? SLC has some points of negotiation if they can wake up and smell the coffee.

I have hinted enough at what awaits SLC. In 10 years I will write and publish my view on how the management of SLC performed. SLC may have the biggest open door outside of Dubai. Minor Delays, fuel saving location by method of distance and new equipment (A350, 787), and a monopoly by a sleeping airline.

Also what if a discount airline purchased the 787 and used SLC for its launching pad internationally?

[Edited 2007-10-02 00:19:22]

[Edited 2007-10-02 00:20:50]

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 18): SLC is unique in that it is equal distant to many major destinations as is Dubai. With the event of the 787 SLC can be a major player internationally.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 18): The trick is to get more than Delta on board.

It just can't be done without Delta, and I challenge them ever being able to do it.

If United can't pull it off at Denver, there's no way DL could do it at SLC. The mid-US is just not a good place for anyone to connect to anywhere except the US.

That, and the US is actively discouraging this sort of thing.

NS

I also tend to believe that DL will discourage the airport from building anything so big that it might allow another carrier to potentially buildup at SLC.

UA learned this lesson the hard way at DEN. Because of CO's shutdown of the DEN hub, DEN was left with a surplus of gates when it opened. That opened the door for Frontier to step in and aggressively build up a DEN hub. The positive about DEN is that it is a very scalable airport and it is relatively easy to expand. Of course, this can be a negative or a positive for UA.

But back at SLC, if the terminal is built too big, it might encourage a carrier like JetBlue to attempt a focus city (or more) there. B6 is going to want to grow in the West and DEN/PHX are extremely competitive. At SLC, you have DL and WN, but WN hasn't done much in SLC in years. Right now, B6 can't get enough gates to do much at SLC, even if they want to.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 2): Obviously, you want to allow for growth, but you also don't want to end up like PIT or CVG with so many gates you are forced to mothball chunks of the airport.

With PIT, nobody saw US winding up in financial trouble and having to 86 its hub in favor of CLT and O&D goldmine PHL. Regarding SLC though. I think that market should be fine. DL is in town there and they're only going to expand service, so any kind of facilities expansion of SLC will be necessary in my book.

I had an interview on Friday for a GIS intern position at Delaware County Planning, and PHL is in a real pickle! Enough said! SLC doesn't have any problems like what PHL has, do they?

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 5): have proven to be a very good design some 25 years after it first opened.

It's the design par excellence for a 1carrier-dominated high-connecting-traffic airfield.... wouldn't really work with the likes of JFK, LAX, or MIA though.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 8): St Louis-ners? St Louisers? St. Loosers? St Louisianers? What in the world do you call people from St Louis?

St.Lunatics... what else?!

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 18): With the event of the 787 SLC can be a major player internationally.

Or not.
The 787, and any other aircraft, isn't going to do much as far as intercontinental expansion, for an area with SLC's (comparative lack of) O&D.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 19): That, and the US is actively discouraging this sort of thing.

Two decades ago as plans were being drawn up for the DIA facility, the FAA marched to the beat of a different drummer and encouraged a big "super-hub" airport for DEN figuring that was the best method, to build such a facility for all airlines. They wanted the DIA facility to be the hub for not just UA and CO, but for a recently merged DL (with Western) as well. To date ORD remains the only large multi-legacy hub after DL pulled up stakes at DFW just over two years ago.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 20): I also tend to believe that DL will discourage the airport from building anything so big that it might allow another carrier to potentially buildup at SLC.

WN has been successful in avoiding a pissing contest at SLC with DL, but that said, both carriers need more main-line gates and the city won't build more than either can afford with paid leases in addition to the passenger facility charges. More importantly there needs to be more space since there is a security separation between actual ticketed passengers, personnel and other guests coming to greet incoming persons. As noted in another post above, SLC is in dire shortage of such space, and all the band-aid stuff thats been done in recent years, especially the last two have done nothing to alleviate the mob scene around the baggage carousels in terminal 2 in particular.

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 16): Some of the most successful new/expanded/rebuilt airports have been when the old facility was way beyond capacity. Places like DEN & DTW particularly.

SLC is falling VERY quickly into this situation. But it all depends who wants in. If B6 wants more gates (same for WN) and the cost analysis supports it, SLC will build more gates and terminal space for them once they commit to such a venture.
What I think many people fail to realize is that the current facility is built to accommodate only 12 million or so annual passengers (both O&D and connecting). This years estimates point to SLC exceeding 23 million passengers, with anywhere from 11-12 million being O&D, so even without the DL hub, this airport is LONG OVERDUE for a major re-build, expansion, make-over etc...

Quoting Mason (Reply 9): What about extending 16L/34R for the new DL flight to CDG. Issues have been discussed regarding getting a 763 out of there on a warm summer afternoon without weight restrictions.

There is an analysis of the runway situation on the SLC website. The report said that the 763 shouldn't have problems on most days taking a full load. Oddly enough, the most restricted aircraft (out of the 763, 343, 346, 747 and 777) turned out to be the 772. That entire section of the report is quite an interesting read if you're familiar with the area.

SLC_ALP_Report.pdf" target=_blank>http://www.slcairport.com/pdf/planning/SLC_ALP_Report.pdf

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 21): SLC doesn't have any problems like what PHL has, do they?

We have a problem even more dire than the situation at PHL: There is no Chick-fil-a in the SLC airport.  

Quoting MastaHanky (Reply 24): Oddly enough, the most restricted aircraft (out of the 763, 343, 346, 747 and 777) turned out to be the 772

Your link didn't work (at least on my PC), but I suspect the 772ER would be the most restricted in some intense heat days that typically come between mid-June and to the end of August.

Quoting MastaHanky (Reply 24): We have a problem even more dire than the situation at PHL: There is no Chick-fil-a in the SLC airport.

That sucks!!    But as I said there is VERY little room for much of anything at SLC right now.   

Quoting MastaHanky (Reply 24): We have a problem even more dire than the situation at PHL: There is no Chick-fil-a in the SLC airport.

So there's no alternative to McDonalds? Ugh, I feel for you there! Don't feel bad, PIT doesn't have one either I don't think...

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 1): The philosophy should always be to build too much rather than too little.. cause you can always not use it.. but it's a pain in the butt to need it and not have it..

The goal is to build within your means. Airports have to be cost self sufficient in the US. If you overbuild, your costs are upside down and there is no real bail out other than raising the rent. Just ask Denver.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 6): I concur.. However.. I would hate to see them build something for X amount of gates.. and when it is open.. all X gates are taken in less than 2 years.. instead.. I should see X + 5% or X+10% gates so at least there is some room for further growth beyond the project.. I don't mean build a 100 gate concourse. that WOULD be crazy..

That's what an air service forecast is for. It drives your master plan in terms of scale and the cost of that scale is driven (or limited) by attainable revenue.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 8): OMG.. I never saw the actual location of the runway before.. what in the WORLD? who would have thought to put that runway all the way in the corner like that.. that was just bad planning..

They didn't have enough room for 4,300-feet of separation for simultanious IFR arrivals and departures. That arrangement offsets the thresholds which in turn effectively increases the runway separation. The 12's are dependent and 11 is independent.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 20): I also tend to believe that DL will discourage the airport from building anything so big that it might allow another carrier to potentially buildup at SLC.

While Delta can influence the design, the scale in market driven. The airport is required by law to ensure a competitive environment.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 19): It just can't be done without Delta, and I challenge them ever being able to do it.

The airport is obligated to enhance its operational capability, regardless the form.

[Edited 2007-10-02 07:32:57]

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 26): So there's no alternative to McDonalds? Ugh, I feel for you there! Don't feel bad, PIT doesn't have one either I don't think...

Close. No alternative to Burger King!

Not to be too picky (or late with the comment) but it seems to me that the thread's title,
"SLC To Start Long Awaited Expansion"
seems a little bit, shall we say, optimistic?

In the articles, I see phrases like "considering expansion", "expansion talks have resumed", "nothing has been decided yet", and "officials are ready to talk expansion again", and there is no question that expansion is needed, but the thread title sort of implies (to me) that the blueprints are being drawn and the 'dozers are waiting on the tarmac!

As a San Diegan, I know very well that the overwhelming need for, and the actual process of, expanding an airport or even just adding a few gates to a terminal, are two VERY different things, and getting from the former to the latter generally spans decades! (And, ummm, some entities are certainly better at it than others...   )

But yes, the process does have to start somewhere... and good for SLC for at least starting to talk about it now.

bb

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 27): While Delta can influence the design, the scale in market driven. The airport is required by law to ensure a competitive environment.

True, but DL is the primary market driver. The only reason SLC has as much traffic as it does is because of the DL hub. Any forecast of SLC traffic will be driven by DL's behavior.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 23): This years estimates point to SLC exceeding 23 million passengers, with anywhere from 11-12 million being O&D, so even without the DL hub, this airport is LONG OVERDUE for a major re-build, expansion, make-over etc...

True, although in my experience SLC isn't all that busy except for two peak times...DL's morning push between 9-11am and DL's afternoon push from 3:30 to 5:30pm. Outside of those two times, the airport isn't that stressed.

Quoting Tedex (Reply 28): Close. No alternative to Burger King!

Well... PIT has McDonalds! Which one is worse??? They do have a Sbarro Italian Eatery though. I would take a quality slice of pizza, chicken parmesian, pasta dish, etc... anyday over a bigmac. I can't believe that the bigmac was also born in Pittsburgh, not a proud moment for the city...

The folks at burger king... well they can't put a whopper together without all the toppings coming out when you try to consume it. It's pretty much a glorified sloppy joe!

Fair use quotes from the news

Salt Lake Tribune:

Delta would "support the continued economic development of the airport," said spokeswoman Susan Elliott, whose carrier dominates traffic in and out of the nation's 14th-busiest airport.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7042211

"And then right after I got here, Delta emerged from bankruptcy. I think that changed the whole landscape in the market."

USA Today:

Delta told airport executives to expect passenger traffic to grow by 5 to 9 percent for several years, a rate that could cause traveler numbers to double in as few as 10 years, Enormous population surges in Utah and other Western states during the past quarter-century, fueled by strong economies, have produced ever-growing numbers of people moving around the region. Airlines have moved rapidly in the past two years to tap the trend.
The growth is one reason Delta will launch the first trans-Atlantic route from Salt Lake City next year, a nonstop to Paris which will be one of many new international destinations from Salt Lake City to Europe and Asia.
"If we want to continue to grow and meet the . . . increase in passenger traffic, we do need to accommodate the aircraft that land here, and they will need new gates," Riley said.

Prior to announcing their plans to develop the 787 and A380, respectively, analysts from Boeing and Airbus studied the market to try and determine what kind of plane would best meet future demand in the airline industry. Airbus concluded that the growth of large cities would support hub-to-hub travel, making the A380 a perfect fit. The enormous plane can also carry more passengers without increasing "air traffic movements," the company argues.

Boeing claims that new airports or airport extensions in smaller cities will stimulate demand for mid-size jets like the 787. Boeing noted many airlines wanted a 767 sized plane with hot and high performance for international destinations. Many airlines are seeking aircraft that can take advantage of changes such as open sky agreements which will open up the interior of the USA. The company also believes that passengers place a premium on schedule convenience, or having the opportunity to choose from an increased number of direct flights, which the 787 will facilitate.

In assessing demand, perhaps analysts from both companies should have simply asked passengers on what kind of plane they'd prefer to fly. It turns out that Harris Interactive, a worldwide market research and consulting firm, did just that and the results swing strongly in Boeing's favor.

The group conducted a survey of 913 international air travelers in the United Kingdom, Tokyo, and Hong Kong, who had recently taken a flight that was eight hours or longer, to assess whether travelers prefer smaller planes (250-seaters like the 787) or larger planes (550-plus-seaters like the A380) for long-haul flights. Those surveyed overwhelmingly favored smaller planes.

The poll revealed that 80%, 81%, and 78% percent of Economy Leisure Travelers surveyed in the U.K., Hong Kong, and Tokyo, respectively, preferred a non-stop flight on the 250-seater, rather than having a one-stop connection with the larger aircraft unless it was through a less crowded gateway with better amenities. For non-stop flights, more than 60% of those surveyed said that they would prefer a single-deck, 250-passenger plane, to a double-deck, 550-passenger plane. Many major airlines are looking at the 250-passenger sized plane for what is being called mini-hubs in smaller markets to bi-pass the delays and costly issues of crowed gateways.

In addition to "convenience" and "flexibility," passengers in all of the regions surveyed said that a smaller plane would make life less chaotic when it comes to check-in, boarding, disembarking, baggage claim, and customs/immigration, compared to a 550-seater.



Looks like many of the emotional views here are off the mark:

1-Looks like Delta is one of a few airlines pushing SLC to expand.
2-SLC O&D traffic is on a pattern of record growth
3-Delta is looking to use SLC for an International mini hub.
4-New equipment will provide new capability as requested by many airlines
5-Many major players are finding ways to bi-pass major gateways for more comfortable and less costly gateways due to taxi delays, holding patterns, etc.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 30): True, although in my experience SLC isn't all that busy except for two peak times...DL's morning push between 9-11am and DL's afternoon push from 3:30 to 5:30pm. Outside of those two times, the airport isn't that stressed.

But go inside the terminal and concourses sometime if you have a long layover, and you'll see what I mean. Wall to wall people all along each concourse. The only immediate airfield improvement that is needed is extending runway 16L-34R another 2,500' or so along with any associated taxiways. This expansion and make-over is about the terminal and concourse facilities which every travel publication or program will admit is sorely antiquated.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 32): 1-Looks like Delta is one of a few airlines pushing SLC to expand.

WN and B6 would also benefit, and possibly F9. Expansion could also bring about some new entrants such as FL or perhaps down the road a foreign flag carrier such as KLM, LH or perhaps BA.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 32): SLC O&D traffic is on a pattern of record growth

As it stands now, SLC O&D numbers alone clearly indicate the need for new terminal and concourse facilities.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 32): Delta is looking to use SLC for an International mini hub.

If CDG brings in the numbers they think it might, perhaps it could bring in flights to LGW, FRA or AMS? But more realistically are further connections to Mexico and possibly a few seasonal Caribbean destinations, not to mention feed to LAX for a deeper Latin American buildup.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 32): Delta would "support the continued economic development of the airport," said spokeswoman Susan Elliott, whose carrier dominates traffic in and out of the nation's 14th-busiest airport.

Actually the correct number if I recall correctly is "22nd Busiest in the USA" and 54th in the world.
From the Salt Lake Tribune article:

Quoting SLTrib.com: Delta told airport executives to expect passenger traffic to grow by 3 to 5 percent for several years, a rate that could cause traveler numbers to double in as few as 14 years, Enormous population surges in Utah and other Western states during the past quarter-century, fueled by strong economies, have produced ever-growing numbers of people moving around the region. Airlines have moved rapidly in the past two years to tap the trend. The growth is one reason Delta will launch the first trans-Atlantic route from Salt Lake City next year, a nonstop to Paris.

One thing airport planners need to perhaps assume in their model for SLC O&D numbers is; "What would those numbers be if PVU (Provo) and OGD (Ogden) started commercial service. I'm certain those two airports need to be factored into any competition plan SLC puts forward to the FAA.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 2): But you also have to be careful not to build a facility so big that its costs drive carriers away. Obviously, you want to allow for growth, but you also don't want to end up like PIT or CVG with so many gates you are forced to mothball chunks of the airport.

Parts of the terminal are starting to smell!

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 11): I think SLC planners should take a few clues from LAS, PHX and now DEN. DEN in particular built and designed the DIA facility for expansion. SLC is in a great position since they can and will eventually build more runways, not to mention lengthen 1 or two of the existing ones.

They could look at PIT's design too. It was designed to allow for future expansion. More runways and more terminal space as well. There is actually room to make another X terminal if they needed to. The ATC tower and some maintenance facilities would need to be relocated but we have the room for that.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 26): So there's no alternative to McDonalds? Ugh, I feel for you there! Don't feel bad, PIT doesn't have one either I don't think...

We don't have a Chik Fil A. Would be nice to have something else. Mcds sucks! A Wendys or Burger King would be awesome!

Quoting PITops (Reply 34): We don't have a Chik Fil A. Would be nice to have something else. Mcds sucks! A Wendys or Burger King would be awesome!

We have a Chick Fil A at the Sykes Student Union Building at West Chester University, but we can't get one at PIT... PHL has Chick Fil A, AND Burger King, and a whole bunch of other trendy eateries. I know of a few places to get sushi there. The terminals and layout just suck! I would love to work as a GIS intern for Delaware County Planning Dept. I will have access to several layers of the proposed airspace design for PHL! Oh, which by the way, is not in the best interests of the county. Nobody is going to want to have several jets flying a few hundred feet over their homes... PHL is just a royal mess, and there is no easy way out of it either...

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 32): Many major players are finding ways to bi-pass major gateways for more comfortable and less costly gateways due to taxi delays, holding patterns, etc.

If this were the case, ATL would have far more players than they do. JFK and LAX will remain the premiere gateways to the U.S.A. just as YYZ and YVR will for Canada. I don't see SLC becoming the huge gateway that you do, lets be realistic. Aside from LAX here in the west there is SFO, SEA, DEN and PHX as well as PDX not to mention LAS which are all more desirable destinations for foreign flag carriers than SLC.

Quoting PITops (Reply 34): It was designed to allow for future expansion. More runways and more terminal space as well. There is actually room to make another X terminal if they needed to. The ATC tower and some maintenance facilities would need to be relocated but we have the room for that.

It's really too bad such a nice facility will likely remain un-utilized for the foreseeable future. Thankfully SLC will not need to use eminent domain to get any more property, and can remain within the current property they are in.

Quoting PITops (Reply 34): Mcds sucks!

Don't tell my eight year old daughter that!    You will end up in an unattainable argument!   

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 36): If this were the case, ATL would have far more players than they do. JFK and LAX will remain the premiere gateways to the U.S.A. just as YYZ and YVR will for Canada. I don't see SLC becoming the huge gateway that you do, lets be realistic. Aside from LAX here in the west there is SFO, SEA, DEN and PHX as well as PDX not to mention LAS which are all more desirable destinations for foreign flag carriers than SLC.

I suppose SLC will ultimately have service to some of the top international destinations like London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong and the like, right? Unlike what US has with PHL; pretty much every major European market (LGW, CDG, FCO, FRA, MUN, ZRH, etc) plus a few smaller markets (SNN)...

Quote: which will be one of many new international destinations from Salt Lake City to Europe and Asia.

...does DL know about this?

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 37): I suppose SLC will ultimately have service to some of the top international destinations like London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong and the like, right?

I'd be shocked if they ever got more than two of these in any even remotely foreseeable future.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 36): this were the case, ATL would have far more players than they do. JFK and LAX will remain the premiere gateways to the U.S.A. just as YYZ and YVR will for Canada. I don't see SLC becoming the huge gateway that you do, lets be realistic. Aside from LAX here in the west there is SFO, SEA, DEN and PHX as well as PDX not to mention LAS which are all more desirable destinations for foreign flag carriers than SLC.

Atlanta does not fit the equation do to it location on the east coast. SLC's features benefit from its western location and the point to point after a short 1 hour to 1.5 hour flight from most of the west.

SFO has issued warning on heavy traffic and is poor on the on time list. Many airlines complain of the cost of taxi fuel and the delays at SFO and LAX.

SEA is not centrally located as such it would be up to 2 hours plus from most of the west

DEN while excellent and SLC major competitor in this is not as centrally located as SLC. DEN and United can steal SLC's thunder if United is willing to forgo LAX. LAX, I belive will weigh down United from making DEN a truly international monster it should be.


SLC and Delta have an open window. Delta is not married to LAX yet like United.

PHX, LAS both share the same limitations of extreme heat in the summers, not SLC heat but Extreme heat. Watching planes labor out of them with simple loads is an eye full. SLC with an extension of 16L/34R and 2 months of marginal heat can out perform both which suffer 5 months of extreme heat. Have you noticed it is still warm do there? In the winter SLC points doward toward Sea Level performance. Which even with the cold in DEN they have another 1000 feet to worry about.

Bottom line:

1- 2 months of the year with possible heat limiting issues
2- 3 months of the year with limits approaching Sea Level.
3- 4 months of below avg limits
4- 3 months of standard elevation and temp limits
= 7 months of the year it will out perform DEN, PHX, LAS

Be realistic the cards are present and the possibility exists. Right now its a stand off to see who can make someone else pay for it.

The fact remain that it has been identified as noted in the news. All that remains is to see if they are up to the moment.

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 38): I'd be shocked if they ever got more than two of these in any even remotely foreseeable future.

Oh, I don't think they'll have service to every major international city either. Those were just some example markets. DL is going to launch CDG from there, right?

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 40): DL is going to launch CDG from there, right?

Yes. June 2008, the 2nd if memory serves. DL 763ER. (Woo hoo!) Hopefully it won't fail miserably like Air Canada did.

[edit: "crash and burn" is not a good combination of verbs to use on this website]

[Edited 2007-10-03 16:16:56]

Does anyone know how DL feels about this expansion? DL right now cant get its hands on enough gates to satisfy its new found love with SLC. On the negative side DL wants to keep its costs as low as possible and a huge overhaul of the facilities are going to raise costs. SLC is way too small an airport for the amount of traffic that is runnign thru there. There is a HUGE lack of seats and space right now for all of the mainline aircraft that DL is running thru there.

The final sad note is that this expansion might be the final death to the red headed step child for DL, CVG. DL will not keep all of those empty gates at CVG and also raise costs at SLC. If this goes thru which im sure it will, I can't see any other conclusion then completing Deltas big three of ATL, SLC, JFK. CVG will become a focus city, its sad compared to what CVG once had, but its looking more and more like DL has made up its mind and is going with the big 3 and CVG is PIT and STL bound. Anyone think that once this expansion is completed that CVG isn't doomed? The only thing i can think is if ATL and JFK start to get so delayed that another hub is neccesary but CVG not needed in the DL network more than a large focus RJ city, not a hub???

Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 42): its sad compared to what CVG once had, but its looking more and more like DL has made up its mind and is going with the big 3 and CVG is PIT and STL bound.

Regarding the latest news out of PIT regarding US Airways, that is sad news!!!

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 37): I suppose SLC will ultimately have service to some of the top international destinations like London, Paris, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong and the like, right?

For Europe only beyond CVG I only see LGW, FRA and possibly AMS (if KLM steps in). I just don't see nay trans-Pacific destinations for SLC beyond HNL at any point in my lifetime at least.

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 39): DEN while excellent and SLC major competitor in this is not as centrally located as SLC. DEN and United can steal SLC's thunder if United is willing to forgo LAX. LAX, I believe will weigh down United from making DEN a truly international monster it should be

But SLC only has about half the O&D market that DEN has, and only about a third of what PHX and LAS have to offer. SLC is bigger than many bashers here on a.net love to aim at, but for trans-oceanic markets DEN, PHX and LAS have it beat market wise which is why any carrier has taken its time to even consider coming in there.

Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 42): Does anyone know how DL feels about this expansion?

DL wants SLC expansion, and a more efficient terminal/concourse setup, but not the costs of a YYZ, MIA, SEA or DFW is merely the language I've heard from my contacts at DL. They don't expect to have the extremely low cost at SLC (something like $4.00/per pax) they have now, but don't want the $15-$20/per pax stratosphere costs mentioned at the other airports I just listed.

Quoting SlcDeltaRUmd11 (Reply 42): The final sad note is that this expansion might be the final death to the red headed step child for DL, CVG. DL will not keep all of those empty gates at CVG and also raise costs at SLC. If this goes thru which im sure it will, I can't see any other conclusion then completing Deltas big three of ATL, SLC, JFK. CVG will become a focus city, its sad compared to what CVG once had, but its looking more and more like DL has made up its mind and is going with the big 3 and CVG is PIT and STL bound. Anyone think that once this expansion is completed that CVG isn't doomed? The only thing i can think is if ATL and JFK start to get so delayed that another hub is neccesary but CVG not needed in the DL network more than a large focus RJ city, not a hub???

I think the most likely scenario for CVG, is that LCC competitors might come in, but it won't be another STL or PIT.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 30): True, but DL is the primary market driver. The only reason SLC has as much traffic as it does is because of the DL hub. Any forecast of SLC traffic will be driven by DL's behavior.

That also means that Delta doesn't limit its scale either to prevent a competitive environment.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 44): But SLC only has about half the O&D market that DEN has, and only about a third of what PHX and LAS have to offer. SLC is bigger than many bashers here on a.net love to aim at, but for trans-oceanic markets DEN, PHX and LAS have it beat market wise which is why any carrier has taken its time to even consider coming in there.

You're missing the point. A new international market is developing. Low cost carriers with the promise of good service without the delays could use the Delta SLC hub in the West, another less traveled on the East and partner ship with them to kick off new routes. Plus the approval would not be met with as much resistance as new routes from the coasts. There are many international players looking for additional routes to open up the USA with the open skies agreement and some needing to use huge new fleets. Landing in SLC from an international destination would provide access to all western states via Delta. All kinds of scenarios open up then. Think out side the box.

There is a bigger picture going on here.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 44): For Europe only beyond CVG I only see LGW, FRA and possibly AMS (if KLM steps in). I just don't see nay trans-Pacific destinations for SLC beyond HNL at any point in my lifetime at least.

Ok, so we can agree on Europe... Eh you know what, I guess DL will look towards JFK and ATL for their all-out international expansion to the rest of the world...

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 44): I think the most likely scenario for CVG, is that LCC competitors might come in, but it won't be another STL or PIT.

I don't necessarily see DL dropping their CVG service down to 70 flights, like what US is going to do with PIT come January. That would just be wrong. PIT is poised to becomming the most underserved facility in the country. If DL were to do the same thing with CVG, I wonder what kind of statement that would make for the Ohio Valley region as a whole... I would have to imagine that DL sees CVG as too important of a market for them to abandon, but I do wish the fares weren't such a rip-off there from what I hear...

Quoting BlackKnight (Reply 46): You're missing the point.

Obviously you don't know the limitations of the SLC market here in this greater region. There are THREE substantially larger O&D markets within 500 air miles of Utah's capitol. You don't just pop into any hub due to connectivity. Look how KLM and AF have avoided coming into SLC for that very reason. Those two (Technically speaking they are one) would have the most to gain since they are SkyTeam carriers as is DL.

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 47): Ok, so we can agree on Europe... Eh you know what, I guess DL will look towards JFK and ATL for their all-out international expansion to the rest of the world...

I think you can pretty much see the 2-4 Europe hubs I mentioned; CDG, LGW, FRA and perhaps AMS, but that's it. In addition to ATL and JFK, LAX could factor into this eventually.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 48): In addition to ATL and JFK, LAX could factor into this eventually.

Oh yeah, LAX is a focus city for DL, isn't it?