|Quoting treebeard787 (Reply 28):|
I have personally stopped trying to have any conversation with him, he simply will not accept the facts as they are.
I also agree with your thoughts, I think it's very possible that cargo ops will expand to IWA in the next 10-20 years.
Well at least I'm not the only one! It only makes sense to transfer or expand some cargo ops at IWA. Given the vast amount of space available at IWA, it would be a waste not to take advantage of its potential -- which someone will at some point, likely as you say (and as I previously mentioned) 10-20 years. That is when IWA growth will begin to kick into another gear, particularly when they're able to construct their new north terminal complex.
It's been revised multiple times in recent years. The last major revision was I believe around 2009, which pushed the West Terminal project back by at least a decade from its original target of 2020. Had the economic recession not occurred, things may still have been on track for the West Terminal, but obviously it did, and its effects on the industry and on Phoenix in particular were extreme. The last update was made within the last year or two, and that would have accounted for the relatively recently conceived T3S expansion project and a more accurate timeline for the T2
closure. The multitude of revisions have mainly stemmed from the city's general dithering and indecisiveness for the better part of a decade as to the future of T2
, but now there is a concrete plan for its replacement. Sorry I can't be more specific with dates -- I was hoping someone else might remember so they could bail me out!
As a side note, the airport development plan posted by PHX
Flyer is not a master plan (otherwise it would be named as such), and only accounts for projects in the short- and medium-term. He seems to take this as meaning the West Terminal project is off the table, which it is not. Master plans cover 0-5 years, 5-15 years, and 15-30 years. The development plan does not cover the long-term, and merely highlights the imminent projects in a readable manner for the average concerned citizen.
|Quoting MountainWest90 (Reply 29):|
Is there a plan to make an airside connection between T4D and T4A like on the east side? It might not be possible with the parking garage there.
I don't believe so. Given the relatively low crossover between A/B and C/D, the one airside connection should suffice. Even though T4
is a considered a single terminal, it may as well be two terminals sharing the same landside access, so the mere existence of an airside connection is a definite convenience over the other terminals, and proves that the city learned its lesson from the mistakes made with T2
and particularly T3
|Quoting MountainWest90 (Reply 29):|
I'm assuming since they are updating T3S that T3 is part of the long term future of the airport
Yes. It will be around for the foreseeable future. Part of the half billion dollar budget (other than the expansion) includes a complete revamp of the entire terminal, including the north side. Its biggest impact will be an overall modernization and the expansion of the security checkpoints and ticket counters, which are obviously extremely cramped. The ticketing level improved when baggage screening finally moved to the basement with the installation of the new baggage matrix system, but moving the airlines over from T2
means they'll need additional counter space. The end product should look pretty good and will make the two terminal system at PHX
effective for the next 15 years.
Yes, the design incorporates a future station for the terminal. The original Phase II
plan included the station construction in advance of the terminal, but I believe the plan now is design it so that when the terminal is built, the construction of the station won't require any alterations to the tracks.
|Quoting MountainWest90 (Reply 29):|
I'm just going to state my opinion on what should be done. Whether it's more cost effective I don't know but it makes sense to me.
T3S shouldn't be remodeled/rebuilt. They should take that project and put it into building T4D and move the T2 airlines over there temporarily, and by temporarily I mean 10-20 years. Build the West terminal near where T3 is and tear T3 down.
I believe this works better for multiple reasons:
Reduces terminals from 3 to 2, which could help costs.
Allows for better connections when interlining.
Could encourage growth from airlines when space isn't so limited at a curtain terminal.
better for commercial tenants airside because there wouldn't be as much lull in traffic when more airlines are operating together.
Obviously I'd be all for one terminal, or at least for every gate to be connected airside but that isn't possible
My understanding is that moving the T2
tenants to T4D would cause some major issues with Southwest, not least of which because the T4D buildout is intended for them. The T3
modernization and expansion makes it a permanent fixture and will allow the airport to delay the opening of the West Terminal for another 15-20 years.
The primary reason they wouldn't want to construct it sooner is because of the significant cost incurred from the PHX
Sky Train project. That project alone cost roughly 80% or more of the cost for a new 30 gate terminal. The T3
project is better than just a bandaid -- it's a complete overhaul -- and will extend the life of the terminal an additional 30-40 years. That, in combination with the completion of T4D, is a sensible approach to reduce costs from operating three terminals by operating two, and allowing them to financially prepare for the West Terminal expansion.
I understand your point of view, and I agree that basically an East Terminal and West Terminal would be a best case scenario. They just need to be very cost conscious. The total project costs from the start of the Sky Train project in 2008 through its completion as well as the completion of the T3
modernization in 2020 likely exceed $2.5bil. T4D completion and the T3
expansion buy them enough time to service debts and properly prepare for the next step.
|Quoting Aztrainer (Reply 30):|
Totally agree with you on this one, but I have one question about this. Since Tempe is the one that wanted the single departure system, when planes are departing to the west can they have dual departures? I have lived here long enough to remember 727's and old loud 737-100's and 200's taking off simultaneously from 26 and 27.
Technically they could, but since all departures in both flows are based off of the PXR VOR, it isn't possible. The LOA only prevents them from having simultaneous departures in east flow, and mandates that east and west flow are evenly split 50/50 regardless of operational efficiencies. Until departures are independent from the PXR VOR, they won't be simultaneous in any flow.
A series of RNAV departure procedures do exist that would allow for this, but most aren't in use due to reasons (all of which are stupid). Since they were fairly poorly conceived in the first place, they've basically been abandoned. There were plans to create a new set after the somewhat recent optimization of the RNAV arrivals (which are excellent by the way, and have received national awards recognizing their design efficiency), but I know for a fact that no further progress has been made, and there likely won't be for the foreseeable future due to other priorities. IWA will likely have a commonly used RNAV departure published before PHX
, and I only know that because I created the initial design for it.
Having said that, the need for simultaneous departures isn't really pressing. Because PHX
is almost always in VFR conditions with 95% of the aircraft being "Large", Ground controllers only need to sequence the departures taxiing to the runway so there are alternating north and south departures. This allows most aircraft to depart when the preceding aircraft is 6,000ft down the runway and rotating. It requires much less runway occupancy time than arrivals, hence the absolute need for simultaneous arrivals, but no real need for simultaneous departures. Yet.