CLT Moves Ahead With 4th Parallel Runway

tp1040 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:24 pm

http://www.wbtv.com/story/28031444/c...rnational-airport-seeks-4th-runway

I guess this makes it official. They have finally presented the plans to the city council. CLT is proceeding with plans for the 4th parallel runway and expansion. For sometime, the master plan has included the runway.

After much wrangling of who controls the airport, I guess that behind the scenes, CLT has been told that the city will maintain control. (this is just speculation on my part) Also, AA must have encouraged the airport to move ahead.

Never mind the news reporting of a new 4th runway, CLT already has 4 runways. Just because 5/23 is a problem, it is still a runway.

The cost estimate of 93 million seems low, but considering the placement of the runway, maybe they can get it done. 2 year build time?

Cipango · Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:27 pm

Quoting tp1040 (Thread starter):
I guess this makes it official. They have finally presented the plans to the city council. CLT is proceeding with plans for the 4th parallel runway and expansion. For sometime, the master plan has included the runway.

After much wrangling of who controls the airport, I guess that behind the scenes, CLT has been told that the city will maintain control. (this is just speculation on my part) Also, AA must have encouraged the airport to move ahead.

Mergers can be messy. Lets hope AA don't drop CLT in the not too distant future. AA please don't turn CLT into a MEM, CVG or CLE...

bond007 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:30 pm

Yep, I see another St. Louis happening here ....

Let's hope their forecasts are correct!

Jimbo

Polot · Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:33 pm

As the only viable alternative to ATL as a major Southeast hub if AA dropped CLT you will see a rush of service from other carriers, especially [U]LCCs. It's not like MEM, PIT, or STL.

commavia · Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:33 pm

Quoting Cipango (Reply 1):
Mergers can be messy. Lets hope AA don't drop CLT in the not too distant future. AA please don't turn CLT into a MEM, CVG or CLE...

Quoting bond007 (Reply 2):
Yep, I see another St. Louis happening here ....

Let's hope their forecasts are correct!

I don't think there is any chance of that happening - CLT is a far better, stronger hub than MEM, CVG, CLE or STL. I continue to find the suggestions of AA fully dehubbing CLT to be highly unlikely.

N1120A · Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:40 pm

PHX is far more likely to CLE'd than CLT is.

slcdeltarumd11 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:48 pm

I don't know. They are surviving as is and i can't see AA actually getting larger, I think a right sizing is more likely and less Europe larger planes. I expect to see CLT go more domestic and almost all narrow body but will remain a VERY important hub. Its location is excellent, great economy, and its growing. Its very similar to SLC for DL. I think there is 0% risk of AA leaving the hub but right sized seems likely IMHO they do have MIA now for the Caribbean flights and less Europe with JFK much closer. It will become more domestically focused, but its location is excellent for that.

I REALLY hope we don't have another STL in the works here. I think they should put these plans on hold. I guess the best defense just to do it, is the price is pretty low, STL spent $1.1 billion for a runway they totally don't need. If the price can be this low and delays can be minimized I guess theres an argument you can make.

bond007 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:53 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 4):
I don't think there is any chance of that happening - CLT is a far better, stronger hub than MEM, CVG, CLE or STL. I continue to find the suggestions of AA fully dehubbing CLT to be highly unlikely.

I'm certain that most of the experts said similar things about STL at the time.

This industry is brutal, and mostly unpredictable.

Jimbo

jfklganyc · Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:16 pm

Location or not

Anytime a hub is ridiculously bigger than the city O and D demands, there is a threat for a pulldown

In the 80s we saw huge mid continent hubs set up in cities with low O and D

In the late 90s we saw a shift to traditional hubs in larger citiies and airport like JFK and LAX started to look a lot better than 1980s hubs in CVG and STL

CLT is not St Louis...it is a growing city. But it is batting way out of its league in terms of city size vs number of flights and it is doing so with one carrier that now has larger gateways in cities with better O ane D.

To not acknowledge this and to not forsee and assume a shrinkage of international flights as they shift to larger gateways is like a pilot taking off to an airport with known holding and not having adequate reserves. You can do it...but you are asking for an unplanned diversion

LAX772LR · Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:17 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
PHX is far more likely to CLE'd than CLT is.

Yeah, CLT serves major traffic flows (particularly intra-southeast and mid-atlantic) that can't be replicated elsewhere in the AA system. It's here to stay.

PHX is plagued with WN, and doesn't really offer anything that LAX+DFW can't easily replicate or do better, except PacNW to Mexico flows... and with WN beginning/ramping up shorthaul int'l services, how long would the yield on such services be worthwhile?

airbazar · Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:21 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 8):
Location or not
Anytime a hub is ridiculously bigger than the city O and D demands, there is a threat for a pulldown

ATL disagrees with this statement, greatly. And so does DXB while we're at it.

slcdeltarumd11 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:25 pm

I can't see any scenario CLT isn't rightsized but it will still remain an IMPORTANT large hub. It will just shift much more domestic based

LAX772LR · Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:27 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 10):
ATL disagrees with this statement, greatly

Contrary to popular belief, ATL actually has one of the higher O&D to total pax ratios, among the major hubs.

Not only have the numbers been posted several times here over the years, but common sense should sorta tell you that: it's the sole gateway to a 6million person CSA, and has no older/smaller airport to zap the O&D.

Hubs like MIA/IAH/DFW/ORD/etc all "suffer" from that effect, due to FLL/HOU/DAL/MDW respectively; so it's no surprise that ATL is actually rather strong in its O&D, despite the massive amount of cnnx pax.

rmoore7734 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:48 pm

Don't forget the article also mentions a considerable increase in gates

"The plan would increase the number of passenger gates from 93 to 164"

Revelation · Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:54 pm

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 6):
I think there is 0% risk of AA leaving the hub but right sized seems likely IMHO they do have MIA now for the Caribbean flights and less Europe with JFK much closer. It will become more domestically focused, but its location is excellent for that.

I REALLY hope we don't have another STL in the works here. I think they should put these plans on hold. I guess the best defense just to do it, is the price is pretty low, STL spent $1.1 billion for a runway they totally don't need. If the price can be this low and delays can be minimized I guess theres an argument you can make.

I don't see how your statements that even if AA resizes the hub it won't close it lead one to think that the new runway should be put on hold. Personally, I'd prefer we have too many runways than not enough, the planning effort takes years, and it seems the money is in place (largely from airport improvement fees that pax pay) so time for the trucks to roll, IMHO.

roseflyer · Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:01 pm

Quoting bond007 (Reply 7):
Quoting commavia (Reply 4):
I don't think there is any chance of that happening - CLT is a far better, stronger hub than MEM, CVG, CLE or STL. I continue to find the suggestions of AA fully dehubbing CLT to be highly unlikely.

I'm certain that most of the experts said similar things about STL at the time.

This industry is brutal, and mostly unpredictable.

It is a tough industry. CLT is the third largest hub in the United States (behind DL at ATL and AA at DFW), which is quite impressive since there has been significant consolidation in the industry. It is much stronger than MEM, CVG, CLE or STL. That would be a lot of traffic and demand to reroute. DFW could pick up some of the slack, but I would have to imagine that CLT will stay relatively strong. That is too many people to easily shift. Anything is possible and CLT is growing at significant risk, but I don't see them disappearing like PIT or STL.

N1120A · Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:34 pm

CLT is sort of a mini-ATL, based on its location and the nature of its O&D. It it is about a little more than a third the size of the ATL CSA and has significant banking and industry connections. Its not a bad place to have a hub, though I think some of the traffic will disappear get shifted around.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 12):
Contrary to popular belief, ATL actually has one of the higher O&D to total pax ratios, among the major hubs.

Not only have the numbers been posted several times here over the years, but common sense should sorta tell you that: it's the sole gateway to a 6million person CSA, and has no older/smaller airport to zap the O&D.

Hubs like MIA/IAH/DFW/ORD/etc all "suffer" from that effect, due to FLL/HOU/DAL/MDW respectively; so it's no surprise that ATL is actually rather strong in its O&D, despite the massive amount of cnnx pax.

Same with LAX with BUR/ONT/SNA/LGB and the NYC triumvirate.

airbazar · Thu Feb 05, 2015 6:55 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 12):
Contrary to popular belief, ATL actually has one of the higher O&D to total pax ratios, among the major hubs.

I have a very hard time believing that. Using this thread from only 1.5 years ago, ATL is not even in the top-10 for O&D markets. But it's the busiest airport in the nation by passenger numbers. Those 2 facts don't line up to create "one of the higher O&D to total pax ratios"
Top US O&D Airports (by LAXintl Jun 19 2013 in Civil Aviation)

777STL · Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:20 pm

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 6):
STL spent $1.1 billion for a runway they totally don't need.

The 11/29 runway project began back in 1991. The first major drawdown of AA at STL didn't happen until November 2003. By then, the project was well too far along to just abandon.

AVLAirlineFreq · Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Does anyone know if closing runway 5/23 and converting it into a taxiway is a part of this plan?

CV880 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:58 pm

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 19):

Does anyone know if closing runway 5/23 and converting it into a taxiway is a part of this plan?

When Jerry Orr was running the Airport, it was His idea to do away with 05-23 and reconfigure the ground traffic flow around the terminal area. I question the news item as the airport website construction timeline did not indicate an immediate construction timeline, but that has varied somewhat as it initially was to have been done by this year.

$93M is cheap for a new 12,000' runway, so they would be foolish to wait when the cost will only multiply. The other alternative is to extend the current 18-36C from 10,000' to 12,000', which is less costly. With extreme summer temps in the CLT area, just as a safety factor for longhaul takeoffs, one of the runways should probably be at least 12,000'.

[Edited 2015-02-05 12:06:05]

jetero · Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:14 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 12):
Contrary to popular belief, ATL actually has one of the higher O&D to total pax ratios, among the major hubs.

Wrong. It has the highest connecting percentage of any airport except CLT.

a380787 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:16 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 10):
ATL disagrees with this statement, greatly. And so does DXB while we're at it.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 17):

I have a very hard time believing that. Using this thread from only 1.5 years ago, ATL is not even in the top-10 for O&D markets. But it's the busiest airport in the nation by passenger numbers. Those 2 facts don't line up to create "one of the higher O&D to total pax ratios"
Top US O&D Airports (by LAXintl Jun 19 2013 in Civil Aviation)

The ratio is far worse for CLT. It's 27th on that list but contains the 3rd largest single-airline hub nationwide.

The only good thing for CLT is that it's commanding a very good yield relative to its average stage length.

Thenoflyzone · Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:19 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 12):
Contrary to popular belief, ATL actually has one of the higher O&D to total pax ratios, among the major hubs.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that ratio at 30% ? 30 million O&D vs 90 + million handled. That's not high at all !

Quoting CV880 (Reply 20):
With extreme summer temps in the CLT area, just as a safety factor for longhaul takeoffs, one of the runways should probably be at least 12,000'.

There wont be that many long haul flights left in a few years ! Big grin

[Edited 2015-02-05 12:24:39]

oflanigan · Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:20 pm

Just remember PIT built an airport for USAir and in about 15 years later they decided they were done with that idea.

Future airline decisions will be based solely on economics and now how great the runway layout is or the efficiency gains of the location.

tp1040 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:26 pm

Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 19):
Does anyone know if closing runway 5/23 and converting it into a taxiway is a part of this plan?

I would assume so, back when the FAA shut down 5/23 for the first time, it pushed the airport consider alternatives. If CLT is going to grow, the need to be able to safely handle the traffic.

IMHO, 12,000 feet should be a minimum for VLA operation during hot summer months. Think 380. Nobody has said anything about a 380, but if you don't have room, it would be hard for an airline to even think about it.

afcjets · Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:00 pm

Quoting slcdeltarumd11: "I think there is 0% risk of AA leaving the hub but right sized seems likely IMHO they do have MIA now for the Caribbean."

MIA has nowhere near the domestic feed CLT has for connections to the Caribbean so if they were to eliminate nonstop from CLT to the Caribbean, it would mean double connections via either one of their other hubs and MIA for many US cities.

[Edited 2015-02-05 13:03:38]

afcjets · Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:17 pm

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 25):
Quoting AVLAirlineFreq (Reply 19):Does anyone know if closing runway 5/23 and converting it into a taxiway is a part of this plan?
I would assume so, back when the FAA shut down 5/23 for the first time, it pushed the airport consider alternatives. If CLT is going to grow, the need to be able to safely handle the traffic.

Why did the FAA shut down 5/23 before and when?

The terminal master plan calls for concourse B expansion and it makes a right turn. If 5/23 is demolished, why not just extend it straight? This could also be done for C too in the future.

Couldn't the taxiway be extended on the other side of 5/23 instead? I don't like the idea of closing a runway just for taxiway expansion if it is not totally necessary, especially a runway that serves a different purpose. During a storm and/or high winds, it is nice to have the crosswind runway option for a different direction for approach and takeoffs. Also, at least prior to 2010, it was the only runway that was allowed to be used late night and early morning because it is not in the path of residential. Not that it is a factor but it's worth mentioning that landing on 23 gives the best close-up view of the CLT skyline.

[Edited 2015-02-05 13:23:24]

CV880 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:27 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 23):
There wont be that many long haul flights left in a few years !

We shall see....CLT has only been growing flights for the past 30+ years thanks to Piedmont.

Regardless of flights to the Eurozone, HNL is still a viable option on the right sized aircraft, which a 767-200 was not. If DL can consistently fill a 333 from ATL, US/AA should be able to do the same from CLT (certainly a better option that the MIA-HNL option in another thread). At 10hrs to HNL or providing for longer flights at some point to NRT, a 12,000' runway would be necessary unless AA would take payload penalties on hot & humid days.

I'm not saying that a 4th parallel runway is necessary, but a closed 05-23 would make ramp operations there run much smoother than the current operation. Not constructing a 12,000' strip, by lengthening one of the two western runways or building a new one adjacent to 18C-36C is shortsighted and restricts the longhaul options if there were to be expansion. The cost is cheap, and in this case, much cheaper than doing the same in any other major airport. The Airport had approval years ago to extend 18C-36C and chose to defer it when they constructed the western runway (18R-36L). It really was shortsighted to make that one 9000ft when it could have been longer.

JetBlueCLT · Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:52 pm

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 23):

Yup, you're right! Our European operation will depreciate... They'll be running 8 A330s from CLT to Europe. Despite the ending of LIS, MAN and BRU.... But who in there right mind thought those routes would work in the first place. I do see CLT-MAN coming back in a 763 in a few years. 752 was the wrong equipment for that route.

CLT is only going to have a positive future as the merger takes place. Sure we've lost some routes but we've gained more than we lost.

I'm sick of posters using PIT, STL, CVG and MEM as examples of how CLT might be in your mind. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but your reasoning behind it is silly. I reckon you take a look at our geographic location and study on that. Then take a look at the other hubs like MIA JFK PHL, and tell me how those hubs can sufficiently replace CLT as a hub?

[Edited 2015-02-05 13:54:58]

slcdeltarumd11 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:34 pm

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 26):
MIA has nowhere near the domestic feed CLT has for connections to the Caribbean so if they were to eliminate nonstop from CLT to the Caribbean, it would mean double connections via either one of their other hubs and MIA for many US cities.

Cut all Caribbean flying from CLT and replace with MIA? Of course not! Right size the CLT to Caribbean flying that is exactly what i think will happen. CLT has amazing connection power so of course it only makes sense to keep the flights that are mostly connecting traffic or flights that feed off of cities without MIA service. MIA has access to all the major cities and CLT can offer service to alot of the others they can do that with a smaller schedule.

afcjets · Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:04 pm

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 30):
Right size the CLT to Caribbean flying that is exactly what i think will happen.

By right sizing I am assuming you are implying CLT has too much Caribbean service which is redundant to MIA, if so I am curious what markets you think AA might keep vs shred. I actually thought AA might consider expanding Caribbean destinations from CLT. When I followed the industry more heavily, Caribbean had significantly higher yields than other leisure markets, and I would assume that is still the case. Just look at the fares.

cathay747 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:06 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
PHX is far more likely to CLE'd than CLT is.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 9):
PHX is plagued with WN, and doesn't really offer anything that LAX+DFW can't easily replicate or do better, except PacNW to Mexico flows... and with WN beginning/ramping up shorthaul int'l services, how long would the yield on such services be worthwhile?

OMG, here we go again about PHX being de-hubbed, or likely to be...this is getting as bad as
conspiracy theories about who shot JFK!

I mean no disrespect to anyone but...PHX is a profitable hub, which has been pointed
out ad-nauseum in countless other threads. PHX might be right-sized a bit in order to
increase the profitability and fine-tune the network, but it's not going to be de-hubbed.
No airline in their right mind is going to de-hub a profitable hub. Period. Next topic please.

tp1040 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:14 pm

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 27):
Why did the FAA shut down 5/23 before and when?

First time was a couple of years ago for a construction of a deicing pad.

The last time was more recent.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...l-runway-reopens-at-charlotte.html

Moose135 · Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:18 pm

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 27):
Why did the FAA shut down 5/23 before and when?

It was all-but closed between August 2013 and March 2014. It was open for late night/early morning arrivals only. There were several incidents with aircraft going missed approach from 23 conflicting with departures from 18C. When they resumed regular use of 23, they put new procedures in place to better sequence aircraft - now, they will not clear an 18C departure if an aircraft inbound to 23 is within a certain distance of the runway, instead waiting until it lands. Spotting at CLT now, you will often hear "Cactus xxx, Line up and wait Runway 18C, traffic landing 23..."

afcjets · Thu Feb 05, 2015 11:36 pm

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 34):
There were several incidents with aircraft going missed approach from 23 conflicting with departures from 18C.

Thanks for answering my question. This fascinates me because 18C/36C, formerly known as 18R/36L opened in June 1979 (not knowing it at the time I landed there the day it opened as a kid and on that runway as I remember the concrete vs asphalt) and 5/23 is the oldest runway I believe at the airport. Why was this not an issue during the first 30 years? It was an Eastern hub when the runway opened, and within a couple of years Piedmont began building their hub there, so simultaneous use of these two runways is nothing new.

Moose135 · Fri Feb 06, 2015 12:32 am

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 35):
Why was this not an issue during the first 30 years?

I think it may have been a potential problem all along, but the higher rate of operations accentuated the issue. They can safely use both, but it can slow the departure rate on 18C - although it provides a natural break for 18R arrivals to cross to the terminal area.

cltguy · Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:27 am

Just to be clear...all this article is about is that the 4th Parallel runway has been added to the updated Master Plan for the airport...so it is now on the 20 year horizon. No firm has been hired to do the engineering and design documents for the runway and no firm has been hired to do construction. To my knowledge the environmental docs havn't even been started yet so this is still some time off.

We will learn more after the City Council presentation on Monday and when the updated Master Plan is released in April.

afcjets · Fri Feb 06, 2015 1:39 am

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 34):
When they resumed regular use of 23, they put new procedures in place to better sequence aircraft - now, they will not clear an 18C departure if an aircraft inbound to 23 is within a certain distance of the runway, instead waiting until it lands.

A long time ago I considered the danger of an aircraft landing on 23 doing a go-around while an aircraft departs from 18C (although I thought of this long before the third parallel runway was built so it was 18L at the time). Wouldn't the same procedure need to be in place for the new 18R too? A runway 23 bound jet making a go around would be in the path of a jet departing from either 18R or 18C. I read once 18R is primarily used for landings, but IMO there should still be an official policy in place prohibiting simultaneously landings of 23 and both 18C and 18R takeoffs.

jfklganyc · Fri Feb 06, 2015 3:27 am

Tangent

I love Runway 23.

One of my favorite runways to land on in the system.

It is a straight intercept off the north east arrival...making it the quickest and easiest way into the airport

***The runway has a hump right in the sweet spot. You can grease landings on this runway if you time it just right***

Downslope = max reverse after the grease landing described above

Right turn into the ramp and gate.

If you are a pilot, CLT is a pain in the neck airport when taxiing. It's ramp is small and congested. The airfield itself lacks adequate taxiways on the perimeter of the ramp to move traffic efficiently TO FROM and AROUND the ramp without going through the ramp.

A 23 landing eliminates most of that garbage.

However, closing 23 and making adequate taxiways in that area would be good.

Moose135 · Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:12 am

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 38):
Wouldn't the same procedure need to be in place for the new 18R too? A runway 23 bound jet making a go around would be in the path of a jet departing from either 18R or 18C. I read once 18R is primarily used for landings, but IMO there should still be an official policy in place prohibiting simultaneously landings of 23 and both 18C and 18R takeoffs.

I've been down here almost three years, and I've never seen an 18R departure - if either 18L or C are open, there's no reason to taxi all the way to 18R to takeoff, it's not like you gain any runway length using it over 18C. 18L and 23 intersect, so obviously they have always sequenced 18L departures and 23 arrivals, but since 18C and 23 don't intersect, they didn't have the restriction until last year. I suppose if someone used 18R for a departure, they probably would sequence them just as they now do for 18C.

N1120A · Fri Feb 06, 2015 5:35 am

Quoting cathay747 (Reply 32):
OMG, here we go again about PHX being de-hubbed, or likely to be...this is getting as bad as
conspiracy theories about who shot JFK!

Quoting cathay747 (Reply 32):
I mean no disrespect to anyone but...PHX is a profitable hub, which has been pointed
out ad-nauseum in countless other threads. PHX might be right-sized a bit in order to
increase the profitability and fine-tune the network, but it's not going to be de-hubbed.
No airline in their right mind is going to de-hub a profitable hub. Period. Next topic please.

Profitable out of necessity, and consolidation. Does PHX go away? No, probably not. But is it deemphasized, especially with the commitment to LAX? Absolutely. PHX doesn't make sense as a hub. It has operational challenges in the summer, the O&D is bottom of the barrel yield-wise and it isn't in a great geographic position.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 23):
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't that ratio at 30% ? 30 million O&D vs 90 + million handled. That's not high at all !

I think LAX772LR confused ratio for raw number. The raw numbers at ATL are quite respectable.

Mainliner · Fri Feb 06, 2015 9:10 am

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 40):
I've been down here almost three years, and I've never seen an 18R departure

It was pretty common about 3-4 years ago during the resurfacing of 18C.

afcjets · Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:03 pm

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 40):
I've been down here almost three years, and I've never seen an 18R departure - if either 18L or C are open, there's no reason to taxi all the way to 18R to takeoff

I agree but the same could be said for landings. There is no reason to land on 18R/36L and have to burn all that fuel and taxi in, except it allows for more efficient departures from 18C/36C. My point is they could just as easily switch or alternate their purposes. Whatever one aircraft saves in time and fuel from taxi-ing to 18C/36C for takeoff, another aircraft loses in direct proportion when landing on 18R/36L.

afcjets · Fri Feb 06, 2015 10:46 pm

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 43):
I've been down here almost three years, and I've never seen an 18R departure - if either 18L or C are open, there's no reason to taxi all the way to 18R to takeoff

Also, not sure if it has changed, but for at least 30 years, Runway 5 was almost NEVER used for takeoffs, and only landings for inbound red-eyes or late arriving night flights (it is not in the path of residential). Prior to the June 1979 with the opening of then 36L/18R (renamed 36C/18C) though, it was used all the time. If anyone has witnessed a takeoff from runway 5 since 1979, I would love to hear about it! If so it must have been between midnight and 630a. I know there are some 6am departures so maybe it happens all the time at that hour ?

Thenoflyzone · Sat Feb 07, 2015 1:09 am

http://centreforaviation.com/members...me-passenger-traffic-record-208641

2014 pax numbers are up by 2 %, 44 million. Aircraft movements, however, were down 2 %, 545,178, mostly due to the airline trend toward using larger, more fuel efficient aircraft.

If movements keep going down, then the need for the 4th parallel will lessen.

Thenoflyzone

flyjoe · Sat Feb 07, 2015 2:18 am

Quoting Mainliner (Reply 42):

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 40):
I've been down here almost three years, and I've never seen an 18R departure

It was pretty common about 3-4 years ago during the resurfacing of 18C.

That was one miserable time period when 18R was used for departures. In addition to the long taxi to 18R, you had to deal with the arriving traffic on 18R.

Quoting AFCJETS (Reply 44):

If anyone has witnessed a takeoff from runway 5 since 1979, I would love to hear about it! If so it must have been between midnight and 630a. I know there are some 6am departures so maybe it happens all the time at that hour ?

We took off on 5 a few months ago. I was on a 6am departure. It was a neat change of pace from the 18/36 departures. I have landed on 5 on a red eye arrival. I couldn't figure out where I was until I saw the US hangar on approach.

afcjets · Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:33 am

Quoting FLYjoe (Reply 46):
We took off on 5 a few months ago. I was on a 6am departure. It was a neat change of pace from the 18/36 departures. I have landed on 5 on a red eye arrival. I couldn't figure out where I was until I saw the US hangar on approach

Oh wow, very cool! Almost every red eye I have taken to CLT has landed on 5, but never seen a departure there in recent history, but I generally avoid 6am departures lol. After I posted about 5, I seem to vaguely remember watching planes line up to depart 5 on a beautiful spring afternoon in the mid 80s, and I thought it was so cool because I had never seen that before, and I have not seen it since.

Sevensixtyseven · Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:09 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 41):

Lies. They don't have that many operational delays in the summer..they did have to delay RJ flights after it topped 117 degrees. The nice thing is T4 is easy to connect through, with excessive empty space compared to LAX. Might I remind you for 20+ years America West built up Phoenix as a hub and happened to make some semblance of money there.

20 million or so passengers departed/arrived in PHX in 2013, as opposed to connecting passengers, which totaled another 20 million, a higher number than LAS or IAH. It may not be the best airport compared to some, but it's hardly a terrible place to have a connection, or fly in and out of.

cathay747 · Sat Feb 07, 2015 3:10 pm

Quoting Sevensixtyseven (Reply 48):
Lies. They don't have that many operational delays in the summer..they did have to delay RJ flights after it topped 117 degrees. The nice thing is T4 is easy to connect through, with excessive empty space compared to LAX. Might I remind you for 20+ years America West built up Phoenix as a hub and happened to make some semblance of money there.

20 million or so passengers departed/arrived in PHX in 2013, as opposed to connecting passengers, which totaled another 20 million, a higher number than LAS or IAH. It may not be the best airport compared to some, but it's hardly a terrible place to have a connection, or fly in and out of.

Exactly. Thank you. And let's not forget that for all the talk about AA @ LAX...
they really have VERY little room to expand @ LAX, as it is they can't even consolidate
all AA & US ops at T4, they are having to spread it out over two terminals. LAX is much
more of an O&D market for AA, while PHX is a fairly nice split of O&D + connecting
traffic. And as you said, HP sure made it work...PHX has outlived (as a hub) MEM, CVG and
CLE by a LONG shot! And again, while PHX may not be the highest-yielding hub in the house,
it IS profitable, and does support traffic flows which LAX can't, and provides extra lift for some
traffic flows on top of DFW. So as I said, while I and others are expecting some right-sizing
@ PHX, it is certain to remain a hub. Proximity to LAX is rubbish...look at PHL/JFK, similar
situation. Add to that that PHX is something like the 5th largest city, and one of the fastest
growing.

Anyway...back on topic, didn't mean to hijack this thread...continue talking about CLT.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net