PIT remodeling airport

william · Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:11 pm

http://pittransformed.com/gallery/

No more landside terminal, it gets torn down and the terminal is integrated into the mid field terminal. Smart move, removes unneeded gates and presents a fresh and vibrant face to arriving in Pittsburgh.

Interesting that the arrivals and departures roadway will be on the same level. One would think they would split that like most major airports.

william · Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:18 pm

More news...

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/de ... 1709120131

drdisque · Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:46 pm

They have the room for one curbfront. The approach road will be very long. There is currently way more arrivals roadway than is actually used.

jnev3289 · Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:52 pm

Very cool, the airport seems like a depressing ghost town sometimes so this will definitely spruce it up a bit

flyPIT · Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:40 am

Here is the Draft Master Plan Update:
http://pittransformed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/DRAFT_PIT_MPU_consolidated_2017-10-27_OPTIMIZED.pdf

atypical · Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:06 am

In 1992 the New York Times published "Pittsburgh Builds Airport of Future Now"
In 2017 the Allegheny County Airport Authority responded, "Just Kidding"

One of two things is going on here, neither is good.
1. Allegheny County Airport Authority is so corrupt it is going to saddle the area with another $1 bil to tear down and rebuild half of everything they did in 1992.
2. The 1992 planing was so poor that they the facilities could not rehabilitated and $1 bil is required to demolish and rebuild them so they are sufficient to meet the current requirements. By past performance those paying for these improvements should be prepared to it again in 2045.

I can't assume they are corrupt because that is too cynical. To me it is obvious they planned the 1992 terminal for a very narrow purpose but this redesign imposes limitations that constrain its use as narrowly. It is an overreaction both in scope and expense and does nothing to make it more useful in 25 years than the 1992 terminal is today. This is not planning an airport for today and in the future, it is only planning to kick the can down the road.

Flaps · Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:31 pm

atypical wrote:
In 1992 the New York Times published "Pittsburgh Builds Airport of Future Now"
In 2017 the Allegheny County Airport Authority responded, "Just Kidding"

One of two things is going on here, neither is good.
1. Allegheny County Airport Authority is so corrupt it is going to saddle the area with another $1 bil to tear down and rebuild half of everything they did in 1992.
2. The 1992 planing was so poor that they the facilities could not rehabilitated and $1 bil is required to demolish and rebuild them so they are sufficient to meet the current requirements. By past performance those paying for these improvements should be prepared to it again in 2045.

I can't assume they are corrupt because that is too cynical. To me it is obvious they planned the 1992 terminal for a very narrow purpose but this redesign imposes limitations that constrain its use as narrowly. It is an overreaction both in scope and expense and does nothing to make it more useful in 25 years than the 1992 terminal is today. This is not planning an airport for today and in the future, it is only planning to kick the can down the road.

Both one and two are in play. You might want to throw in a third; incompetence.

I could not agree more that this is not a solution to anything. It is simply another can of worms that will have to be dealt with again down the road. There is nothing to be gained by tearing off the ends of A and B nor decomissioning 28L/10R. The airport does need a massive amount of work. The infrastructure is in deplorable condition. This proposal however is not the answer. Its just more pain for no gain.

compensateme · Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:35 pm

atypical wrote:
In 1992 the New York Times published "Pittsburgh Builds Airport of Future Now"
In 2017 the Allegheny County Airport Authority responded, "Just Kidding"

One of two things is going on here, neither is good.
1. Allegheny County Airport Authority is so corrupt it is going to saddle the area with another $1 bil to tear down and rebuild half of everything they did in 1992.
2. The 1992 planing was so poor that they the facilities could not rehabilitated and $1 bil is required to demolish and rebuild them so they are sufficient to meet the current requirements. By past performance those paying for these improvements should be prepared to it again in 2045.

I can't assume they are corrupt because that is too cynical. To me it is obvious they planned the 1992 terminal for a very narrow purpose but this redesign imposes limitations that constrain its use as narrowly. It is an overreaction both in scope and expense and does nothing to make it more useful in 25 years than the 1992 terminal is today. This is not planning an airport for today and in the future, it is only planning to kick the can down the road.

No, you left out:

3. The current facilities are nearing 30-years-old and thus approaching the end of their useful life; hundreds of millions of dollars would be necessary to extend the useful life of the facilities. Tens of millions of dollars are wasted annually supporting an oversized facility that was designed to be a large hub.

Notice how the article mentions that AA said the project will be cost neutral over the long run? Notice how the article mentions that the current tram system alone costs $23 million a year -- and that doesn't begin to address the cost of replacing it. In other words... most of the money spent on the new facilities would've been spent, anyway, and the rest will be recovered through efficiencies. Meanwhile, PIT-area passengers get a modern terminal meant to serve their needs.

CVG, BTW, indicated several years ago that should DL fully de-hub there, it would proceed with expanding Concourse A and demolishing Concourse B for similar reasons -- B is way to big and would cost way too much money to maintain, thus it's cheaper to expand A and rid of the excess (including the tram).

atypical · Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:24 pm

compensateme wrote:
atypical wrote:
In 1992 the New York Times published "Pittsburgh Builds Airport of Future Now"
In 2017 the Allegheny County Airport Authority responded, "Just Kidding"

One of two things is going on here, neither is good.
1. Allegheny County Airport Authority is so corrupt it is going to saddle the area with another $1 bil to tear down and rebuild half of everything they did in 1992.
2. The 1992 planing was so poor that they the facilities could not rehabilitated and $1 bil is required to demolish and rebuild them so they are sufficient to meet the current requirements. By past performance those paying for these improvements should be prepared to it again in 2045.

I can't assume they are corrupt because that is too cynical. To me it is obvious they planned the 1992 terminal for a very narrow purpose but this redesign imposes limitations that constrain its use as narrowly. It is an overreaction both in scope and expense and does nothing to make it more useful in 25 years than the 1992 terminal is today. This is not planning an airport for today and in the future, it is only planning to kick the can down the road.

No, you left out:

3. The current facilities are nearing 30-years-old and thus approaching the end of their useful life; hundreds of millions of dollars would be necessary to extend the useful life of the facilities. Tens of millions of dollars are wasted annually supporting an oversized facility that was designed to be a large hub.

Notice how the article mentions that AA said the project will be cost neutral over the long run? Notice how the article mentions that the current tram system alone costs $23 million a year -- and that doesn't begin to address the cost of replacing it. In other words... most of the money spent on the new facilities would've been spent, anyway, and the rest will be recovered through efficiencies. Meanwhile, PIT-area passengers get a modern terminal meant to serve their needs.

CVG, BTW, indicated several years ago that should DL fully de-hub there, it would proceed with expanding Concourse A and demolishing Concourse B for similar reasons -- B is way to big and would cost way too much money to maintain, thus it's cheaper to expand A and rid of the excess (including the tram).

If these buildings are approaching the end of their useful lives then there is no better evidence needed their 1992 planning was poor. In fact that if this is true, then it is so fiducially irresponsible that the Allegheny County Airport Authority engaged in fraud.

The airport is adept at slight of hand tricks when discussing the financial situation. The tram for example got finished with an $11 mil modernization in 2016. *flush* The $25 mil a year to operate the tram is not supported in the 2017 budget the airport authority released. Considering the operating budget was $107 mil for the entire airport, to have the tram to take up almost 1/4 the budget makes poor planning just that much more obvious.

Flaps had the better term, poor planning is apart of being incompetent.

The changes in CVG are not even close to being comparable with PIT. First, the changes are minor from a cost comparison. Second, the plans at CVG do not include demolishing half the airport to build it somewhere else. I believe 10 gates is the extent of what they will be rebuilding to replace what is demolished. This is comparing someone getting crowns on their teeth to facial reconstruction.

Blimpie · Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:05 am

I still thought tearing down the old terminal was a crock to begin with. Allegheny County had all their eggs in one basket with US Air and expected the good times would roll on forever. Didn't quite play out that way. Frankly, calling a downgrade as a modernization upgrade is disingenuous, but since I moved out of Pittsburgh, for Washington DC a few decades ago, I have no dog in the fight anymore.

william · Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:19 am

Why demolish the runway?

pgh234 · Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 am

william wrote:
Why demolish the runway?

I for the life of me can't understand that one either. It is easy to add more gates if they are needed. However, the pure hell of adding a new runway if needed (FAA approvals, NIMBY's, years of sound studies and sound proofing)...I cannot possibly understand. Why spend money removing it? It can't possibly cost THAT much to maintain for the limitless operational flexibility it provides.

piedmontf284000 · Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:20 am

Let's be honest, the current airport is outdated and was built for an airline that no longer exists and quite honestly fleeced Allegany county. It's a needed plan. Streamlining is the way to go. It will help trim costs dramatically. It's a lot of money but it sounds like the taxpayers and the airlines won't have to contribute as it Will be funded by bonds. Also good that the bonds from the 92 expansion have been paid off.

midway7 · Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:10 pm

Much different situation back in 1992. They actually started planning of the existing terminal back in the late 1970's. Deregulation drove a lot of growth and establishment of the USAir hub. Most of the 1980's were spent trying to get USAir on board. Even with construction in the early 90's, the existing terminal has it's heavy concrete architecture because of its planning back in the 1970's. At the time the terminal was opened, many other facilities were incorporating more glass and light concepts.

I understand the airports concern about aesthetics and functional obsolesce, especially with the hub long gone. However, are the airlines on board with this? I just cannot get my hands around spending $1B to reduce the number of gates and a runway. The costs will obviously go up to the airlines, not only due to construction costs, but less capacity resulting in higher costs amortized over a smaller amount of operations. Just does not seem like the results justify the means.

TWFlyGuy · Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:55 pm

I just glanced through the whole doc. Very interesting. I get being upset and questioning it but as well know, in 1992 they had a hub that was outsized but was an important driver for the city so catering to it made sense. Living in CLT which has so far kept the USAirways hub and is now going through a $2B project I sometimes question it but as a growing city it makes sense today. Hoping it still does in 20 years. One thing I didn't see much talk of in the master plan was the US, now AA, hangars. I have to wonder what the lease on those is and if AA really expects to keep them beyond that lease. Obviously you can always flow aircraft through any station to make the maintenance schedule work but it PIT the station that will continue to play that role?

PITingres · Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:49 pm

atypical wrote:
In 1992 the New York Times published "Pittsburgh Builds Airport of Future Now"
In 2017 the Allegheny County Airport Authority responded, "Just Kidding"

One of two things is going on here, neither is good.
1. Allegheny County Airport Authority is so corrupt it is going to saddle the area with another $1 bil to tear down and rebuild half of everything they did in 1992.
2. The 1992 planing was so poor that they the facilities could not rehabilitated and $1 bil is required to demolish and rebuild them so they are sufficient to meet the current requirements. By past performance those paying for these improvements should be prepared to it again in 2045.

I think you're being excessive. The 1992 terminal (planned a decade before, as pointed out by others) was meant to serve mostly connecting traffic. It's too large and too expensive to run for the current traffic, which is 96% O&D and less than half the pre-dehub level, according to the planning document, as opposed to almost half O&D and half connecting in 2004. You simply don't plan for an unexpected de-hub and halving of traffic levels, and had the original planners done so, they would rightly have been labeled a bunch of idiots.

You don't tweak an existing terminal to be efficient for such a complete change in traffic requirements, just like you don't rebuild a semi-truck into a sports car. Thinking that such a thing is possible is being entirely unrealistic.

I don't pretend that the ACAA has run the existing terminal efficiently (I have no inside info one way or the other), and I'm puzzled by a few aspects of the new plan. Overall, though I think it's a decent plan whose time has come. PIT will never be a hub going forward, barring some entirely unforeseen development, and the right thing to do is to build an airport for today's traffic and not yesterday's.

Did you actually read the planning document, or are you just whinging?

Cubsrule · Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:02 pm

PITingres wrote:
You don't tweak an existing terminal to be efficient for such a complete change in traffic requirements, just like you don't rebuild a semi-truck into a sports car. Thinking that such a thing is possible is being entirely unrealistic.

Other than apparently being shoddily constructed, the problems with the existing terminal are the poor security circulation and the train. Those are fixable at significantly less expense than what ACAA has proposed. Imagine a new screening building on the former E site with a ground level walkway to the gates. I don't have a firm idea of how much that would cost, but it is obviously cheaper than the current proposal.

midway7 · Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:13 pm

PITingres wrote:
atypical wrote:
In 1992 the New York Times published "Pittsburgh Builds Airport of Future Now"
In 2017 the Allegheny County Airport Authority responded, "Just Kidding"

One of two things is going on here, neither is good.
1. Allegheny County Airport Authority is so corrupt it is going to saddle the area with another $1 bil to tear down and rebuild half of everything they did in 1992.
2. The 1992 planing was so poor that they the facilities could not rehabilitated and $1 bil is required to demolish and rebuild them so they are sufficient to meet the current requirements. By past performance those paying for these improvements should be prepared to it again in 2045.

I think you're being excessive. The 1992 terminal (planned a decade before, as pointed out by others) was meant to serve mostly connecting traffic. It's too large and too expensive to run for the current traffic, which is 96% O&D and less than half the pre-dehub level, according to the planning document, as opposed to almost half O&D and half connecting in 2004. You simply don't plan for an unexpected de-hub and halving of traffic levels, and had the original planners done so, they would rightly have been labeled a bunch of idiots.

You don't tweak an existing terminal to be efficient for such a complete change in traffic requirements, just like you don't rebuild a semi-truck into a sports car. Thinking that such a thing is possible is being entirely unrealistic.

I don't pretend that the ACAA has run the existing terminal efficiently (I have no inside info one way or the other), and I'm puzzled by a few aspects of the new plan. Overall, though I think it's a decent plan whose time has come. PIT will never be a hub going forward, barring some entirely unforeseen development, and the right thing to do is to build an airport for today's traffic and not yesterday's.

Did you actually read the planning document, or are you just whinging?

AaronPGH · Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:17 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
PITingres wrote:
Imagine a new screening building on the former E site with a ground level walkway to the gates. I don't have a firm idea of how much that would cost, but it is obviously cheaper than the current proposal.

There is already an alternative security checkpoint at E – it still has to lead down to the trains. E gates were landside. It's quite a long distance between the landside and airside.

Cubsrule · Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:30 pm

AaronPGH wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
PITingres wrote:
Imagine a new screening building on the former E site with a ground level walkway to the gates. I don't have a firm idea of how much that would cost, but it is obviously cheaper than the current proposal.

There is already an alternative security checkpoint at E – it still has to lead down to the trains. E gates were landside. It's quite a long distance between the landside and airside.

There's nothing mandatory about the train other than that ACAA didn't bother to build in pedestrian access in the first place. Look at the bridge at DEN, or the long hallways places like CAE or EWR.

AaronPGH · Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:35 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
AaronPGH wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:

There is already an alternative security checkpoint at E – it still has to lead down to the trains. E gates were landside. It's quite a long distance between the landside and airside.

There's nothing mandatory about the train other than that ACAA didn't bother to build in pedestrian access in the first place. Look at the bridge at DEN, or the long hallways places like CAE or EWR.

You really think a walk of almost a mile from landside to airside is an acceptable answer?

Cubsrule · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:02 pm

AaronPGH wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
AaronPGH wrote:

There is already an alternative security checkpoint at E – it still has to lead down to the trains. E gates were landside. It's quite a long distance between the landside and airside.

There's nothing mandatory about the train other than that ACAA didn't bother to build in pedestrian access in the first place. Look at the bridge at DEN, or the long hallways places like CAE or EWR.

You really think a walk of almost a mile from landside to airside is an acceptable answer?

I do not, but it's not almost a mile. From a point in the middle of where E was to the center of the airside terminal is 1,900 feet. The walk distance would be comparable to all sorts of other airport terminals including (but certainly not limited to) Terminal 4 at JFK, Terminals 1 and 2 at ORD, both terminals at DTW, etc.

ODwyerPW · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:09 pm

I'm going to play devil's advocate. I spent all of my 20s and a bit of my 30s in Upstate NY. In the 1990s, the Albany County Airport which served the Capital District (Albany New York is the State Capital), received a much needed overhaul and a new name. The new terminal was gorgeous, the parking garage awesome, car rental and baggage a model of convenience. It's all still very attractive many decades later. However, 9/11 happened and allot of the things I loved about the terminal had to change (I fondly remember the large groups of musicians that would gather in the common area where the A-B-C concourses join. They would play for a few hours in the evenings, putting smiles on the faces of arriving passengers).

Post 9/11 security checkpoints are huge, often requiring much more space than earlier terminal designs allow. So you have airports like Albany International and Pittsburgh that have relatively new terminals, that suddenly don't work as well as planned just a few years later. Pittsburgh of course is complicated by the fact that it was de-hubbed.

So, just 25-30 years out and you are rethinking the layout. Probably a number of airport terminals redesigned in the 90s, that now don't flow as nicely post 9/11/2001.

AaronPGH · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:09 pm

google maps is giving me slightly over 4,000 ft?

PITingres · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:20 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
PITingres wrote:
You don't tweak an existing terminal to be efficient for such a complete change in traffic requirements, just like you don't rebuild a semi-truck into a sports car. Thinking that such a thing is possible is being entirely unrealistic.

Other than apparently being shoddily constructed, the problems with the existing terminal are the poor security circulation and the train. Those are fixable at significantly less expense than what ACAA has proposed. Imagine a new screening building on the former E site with a ground level walkway to the gates. I don't have a firm idea of how much that would cost, but it is obviously cheaper than the current proposal.

Something like that was proposed in the document. You still end up spending millions a year to run the existing baggage, a 1/2 mile walk to the terminal is a non starter, and a sliding people mover is little better than the train (actually it's probably worse, judging from the number of broken down people movers I see at airports all over the world.) It might be a little cheaper in the near term (not as much as you might think, from reading the document), but it leaves significant ongoing expenses that are eliminated with alternative 2, and still leaves PIT in the position of needing significant reconstruction another 20 or 30 years down the road. That's not cost effective planning.

AaronPGH · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:35 pm

I am not one to blindly throw support towards projects, but I don't understand why people are so quick to deride a master plan chosen after all alternatives have been studied by experts for years, that has full buy-in from airlines. The case seems to be pretty clearly laid out in the full PDF document on why they are doing what they're doing (besides maybe the runway demolition). Do you know something that they don't know?

Cubsrule · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:37 pm

PITingres wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
PITingres wrote:
You don't tweak an existing terminal to be efficient for such a complete change in traffic requirements, just like you don't rebuild a semi-truck into a sports car. Thinking that such a thing is possible is being entirely unrealistic.

Other than apparently being shoddily constructed, the problems with the existing terminal are the poor security circulation and the train. Those are fixable at significantly less expense than what ACAA has proposed. Imagine a new screening building on the former E site with a ground level walkway to the gates. I don't have a firm idea of how much that would cost, but it is obviously cheaper than the current proposal.

Something like that was proposed in the document. You still end up spending millions a year to run the existing baggage, a 1/2 mile walk to the terminal is a non starter, and a sliding people mover is little better than the train (actually it's probably worse, judging from the number of broken down people movers I see at airports all over the world.) It might be a little cheaper in the near term (not as much as you might think, from reading the document), but it leaves significant ongoing expenses that are eliminated with alternative 2, and still leaves PIT in the position of needing significant reconstruction another 20 or 30 years down the road. That's not cost effective planning.

We're talking past each other a little bit. Those "significant operating expenses that are eliminated with alternative 2" are a result of poor planning, poor construction, and poor maintenance. The current terminal at BNA opened five years before PIT. There has been (and will be) pretty significant CapEx, but the terminal is nowhere near the end of its useful life. ATL (other than E and F) is a decade older and similarly nowhere near the end of its useful life. ACAA built a building with a 25 year lifespan and apparently didn't bother to do enough maintenance. That's fine and can't be undone, but it is reasonable to ask why they would be expected to make the most fiscally responsible decision now when the last generation has apparently been full of fiscal foolishness.

covert · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:42 pm

Getting rid of the longest runway? Sounds dumb to me. Can't they just paint a couple of yellow x's and call it good. It's going to bite them in the ass when they need it later.

drdisque · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:45 pm

I'm guessing they are planning on closing that runway because it is no longer needed and is in need of repair and resurfacing. The math for funding the terminal rebuild can then basically take the money that would otherwise be spent resurfacing an unused runway.

jnev3289 · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:46 pm

Doing some research on the airport, I must say I'm impressed with their website. It really is excellent, I wish others world take cues from them on this. Very visually appealing and very practical as well. Kudos on that

ODwyerPW · Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:56 pm

covert wrote:
Getting rid of the longest runway? Sounds dumb to me. Can't they just paint a couple of yellow x's and call it good. It's going to bite them in the ass when they need it later.

They have decades of operational data to help them make that decision. Current reality in the USA is that airports in Appalacia and the Hearthland only need to be so big as nationwide demographics are shifting... (Pittsburgs population has been steadily declining for almost 60 years).

Why do empty nesters sell the family home and downsize? To right size; stretching resources (retirement income, lower taxes, etc..) and reducing their work (home maintenance, lawn care). Looks like Pittsburg is rightsizing (no they aren't retiring or dying.... don't read more into my illustration than necessary).

flyPIT · Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:35 pm

midway7 wrote:
Much different situation back in 1992. They actually started planning of the existing terminal back in the late 1970's. Deregulation drove a lot of growth and establishment of the USAir hub. Most of the 1980's were spent trying to get USAir on board. Even with construction in the early 90's, the existing terminal has it's heavy concrete architecture because of its planning back in the 1970's. At the time the terminal was opened, many other facilities were incorporating more glass and light concepts.

This is the biggest complaint I have about the current terminal. Instead of putting out a worldwide bid to architectural firms they insisted on using a local firm, and unfortunately that resulted in the brutalist concrete bunker we have. If they would have done the former we would have a building made of steel and glass and would have aged much better and would be more attractive today. For comparison other terminals opened during the same period are KIX and MUC.

midway7 wrote:
I understand the airports concern about aesthetics and functional obsolesce, especially with the hub long gone. However, are the airlines on board with this? I just cannot get my hands around spending $1B to reduce the number of gates and a runway. The costs will obviously go up to the airlines, not only due to construction costs, but less capacity resulting in higher costs amortized over a smaller amount of operations. Just does not seem like the results justify the means.

Yes, airlines are on board. I don't see your last point. You are suggesting the costs to the airlines will be higher because their operations will be smaller. But just because the number of gates will decrease does not mean the size of the airlines' operations will decrease. The airlines will continue to grow here and traffic will continue to increase. The ACAA predicts the CPE will actually continue to decrease at PIT with this project.

TWFlyGuy wrote:
One thing I didn't see much talk of in the master plan was the US, now AA, hangars. I have to wonder what the lease on those is and if AA really expects to keep them beyond that lease. Obviously you can always flow aircraft through any station to make the maintenance schedule work but it PIT the station that will continue to play that role?

IIRC they are on short 5 year leases now. Every time they come up for renewal I expect AA to bail because they are old and decrepit. But so far AA continues to renew. However I think its only a matter of time before AA delivers its final blow to PIT by eliminating these 1,500 jobs.

PITingres wrote:
Overall, though I think it's a decent plan whose time has come. PIT will never be a hub going forward, barring some entirely unforeseen development, and the right thing to do is to build an airport for today's traffic and not yesterday's.

The industry is full of unforeseen developments so who knows if PIT will ever be a hub again. WN could simply decide they want PIT to be on par with their MCI operation and grow to 70 flights. Adding BOS/BDL/NYC/PHL etc would add many connection options via PIT. Jut like that PIT could be a hub again.

Cubsrule wrote:
We're talking past each other a little bit. Those "significant operating expenses that are eliminated with alternative 2" are a result of poor planning, poor construction, and poor maintenance. The current terminal at BNA opened five years before PIT. There has been (and will be) pretty significant CapEx, but the terminal is nowhere near the end of its useful life. ATL (other than E and F) is a decade older and similarly nowhere near the end of its useful life. ACAA built a building with a 25 year lifespan and apparently didn't bother to do enough maintenance. That's fine and can't be undone, but it is reasonable to ask why they would be expected to make the most fiscally responsible decision now when the last generation has apparently been full of fiscal foolishness.

You make it sound like the existing terminal is about to fall down. The parking garage had structural problems early on but not the rest of the terminal AFAIK. As far as maintenance the CEO of PIT knew she wanted to close the landside building early on in her tenure, so it only makes sense to not spend money on all maintenance on that side.

As to your last point, while the previous ACAA administrations can be accused of "fiscal foolishness", this new team is delivering results and has the complete support of local gov't, businesses, universities, etc. Of course it is reasonable to ask if they are making the correct fiscal choice here - there is a 500+ page report linked above that answers these questions.

covert wrote:
Getting rid of the longest runway? Sounds dumb to me. Can't they just paint a couple of yellow x's and call it good. It's going to bite them in the ass when they need it later.

I agree closing 10R/28L is the wrong runway to close for several reasons (and runway length is not one of them). But simply putting yellow X's on it is asking for a runway incursion. I think they should close the center runway instead, but if they insist on the 28L then it should probably be demolished because it needs a compete rebuild anyway.

Cubsrule · Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:42 pm

flyPIT wrote:
You make it sound like the existing terminal is about to fall down. The parking garage had structural problems early on but not the rest of the terminal AFAIK. As far as maintenance the CEO of PIT knew she wanted to close the landside building early on in her tenure, so it only makes sense to not spend money on all maintenance on that side.

As to your last point, while the previous ACAA administrations can be accused of "fiscal foolishness", this new team is delivering results and has the complete support of local gov't, businesses, universities, etc. Of course it is reasonable to ask if they are making the correct fiscal choice here - there is a 500+ page report linked above that answers these questions.

No. Saying "I want to close the building so we are going to stop doing maintenance" is not a responsible decision unless there is some serious analysis behind it. And yet you seem to assume that ACAA didn't commission the report with the result it wanted in mind.

Two thirds of the passenger experiences in the landside building (ticketing and baggage claim) are lovely. There's plentiful, close parking and for those of us who travel to Pittsburgh the rental car experience is better than many (most?) peer airports. Why lose that simply because the security flow is not good when there is essentially limitless nearby land to play with?

flyPIT · Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:57 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
No. Saying "I want to close the building so we are going to stop doing maintenance" is not a responsible decision unless there is some serious analysis behind it. And yet you seem to assume that ACAA didn't commission the report with the result it wanted in mind.

I'm not sure why you are assuming there was no serious analysis behind it? They studied this for almost 4 years now. I think Ms. Cassotis' initial thought was it is an unusual setup for an airport now predominantly O&D, and after in depth analysis it seems her initial hunch is correct. Its not like she hasn't been in the business 20 years. I see no reason to suggest the report is contrived.

Cubsrule wrote:
Two thirds of the passenger experiences in the landside building (ticketing and baggage claim) are lovely. There's plentiful, close parking and for those of us who travel to Pittsburgh the rental car experience is better than many (most?) peer airports. Why lose that simply because the security flow is not good when there is essentially limitless nearby land to play with?

We won't be losing those positive experiences. In fact they will only get better. Its not only the security issue btw. Int'l arrivals is an issue, reduced maintenance costs of having a single building on one level, and that garage will eventually need to be rebuilt and expanded.

Cubsrule · Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:10 pm

flyPIT wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
No. Saying "I want to close the building so we are going to stop doing maintenance" is not a responsible decision unless there is some serious analysis behind it. And yet you seem to assume that ACAA didn't commission the report with the result it wanted in mind.

I'm not sure why you are assuming there was no serious analysis behind it? They studied this for almost 4 years now. I think Ms. Cassotis' initial thought was it is an unusual setup for an airport now predominantly O&D, and after in depth analysis it seems her initial hunch is correct. Its not like she hasn't been in the business 20 years. I see no reason to suggest the report is contrived.

The reason is your statement that she "knew she wanted to close the landside building early in her tenure." If that's not how things happened, then let's talk about what actually happened. I'm just a user, not a Pittsburger, so I may not have the full story.

pitbosflyer · Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:12 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
flyPIT wrote:
You make it sound like the existing terminal is about to fall down. The parking garage had structural problems early on but not the rest of the terminal AFAIK. As far as maintenance the CEO of PIT knew she wanted to close the landside building early on in her tenure, so it only makes sense to not spend money on all maintenance on that side.

As to your last point, while the previous ACAA administrations can be accused of "fiscal foolishness", this new team is delivering results and has the complete support of local gov't, businesses, universities, etc. Of course it is reasonable to ask if they are making the correct fiscal choice here - there is a 500+ page report linked above that answers these questions.

No. Saying "I want to close the building so we are going to stop doing maintenance" is not a responsible decision unless there is some serious analysis behind it. And yet you seem to assume that ACAA didn't commission the report with the result it wanted in mind.

Two thirds of the passenger experiences in the landside building (ticketing and baggage claim) are lovely. There's plentiful, close parking and for those of us who travel to Pittsburgh the rental car experience is better than many (most?) peer airports. Why lose that simply because the security flow is not good when there is essentially limitless nearby land to play with?

Yah but all that is useless if the security experience is less than ideal. Then of course the savings from getting rid of the people mover entirely will be large. It adds uneaded time and complexity to the process. Not to mention the horrible experience for international arrivals.

Also the improvements of late to the airside terminal have been nice. But some new paint and carpet are not enough to fix the 1990's brutalist architecture's uninviting aura. Having recently visited IND I was shocked at how beautiful and modern their new airport is. Really set the tone for the whole visit. Meanwhile at PIT I feel like the cast of Seinfeld would be at home on the People Mover. Just feels like everything is from a different decade.

flyPIT · Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:51 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
The reason is your statement that she "knew she wanted to close the landside building early in her tenure." If that's not how things happened, then let's talk about what actually happened. I'm just a user, not a Pittsburger, so I may not have the full story.

This is what I was referencing:
"Christina Cassotis knew within three months of becoming CEO of the Allegheny County Airport Authority in 2015 that she wanted to build a replacement landside terminal at Pittsburgh International Airport.

It took 30 months of meetings with airline officials and others to determine that was indeed the right thing to do, says Cassotis. In those interim months, she accomplished much of a five-year plan that was underway for the airport."
https://www.nextpittsburgh.com/latest-news/christina-cassotis-builds-upon-successes-pittsburgh-international-airport/

Again, that does not mean there was not an in depth analysis and due process in developing these plans. The very next paragraph states there was 30 months of meetings with airlines to determine if it was the right plan. The airlines have stated they are on board. Its not like Ms. Cassotis made a unilateral decision here and everyone else be damned.

Cubsrule · Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:07 pm

flyPIT wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
The reason is your statement that she "knew she wanted to close the landside building early in her tenure." If that's not how things happened, then let's talk about what actually happened. I'm just a user, not a Pittsburger, so I may not have the full story.

This is what I was referencing:
"Christina Cassotis knew within three months of becoming CEO of the Allegheny County Airport Authority in 2015 that she wanted to build a replacement landside terminal at Pittsburgh International Airport.

It took 30 months of meetings with airline officials and others to determine that was indeed the right thing to do, says Cassotis. In those interim months, she accomplished much of a five-year plan that was underway for the airport."
https://www.nextpittsburgh.com/latest-news/christina-cassotis-builds-upon-successes-pittsburgh-international-airport/

Again, that does not mean there was not an in depth analysis and due process in developing these plans. The very next paragraph states there was 30 months of meetings with airlines to determine if it was the right plan. The airlines have stated they are on board. Its not like Ms. Cassotis made a unilateral decision here and everyone else be damned.

If she arrived in 2015, the poor maintenance ship had already long since sailed. What was the intended lifespan of the complex when it opened?

flyPIT · Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:28 pm

Cubsrule wrote:
If she arrived in 2015, the poor maintenance ship had already long since sailed. What was the intended lifespan of the complex when it opened?

That I do not know but I think not using predominantly steel and glass like other terminals of the day seemed to have been a negative beyond just aesthetics. Not that the place is about to fall down but I would think the more modern materials would have a longer lifespan. If there was poor planning done here it was that, and an example of some 1970's/1980's Allegheny County Good 'Ole Boy corruption by using that architect who no doubt was a friend or family member of someone. Having said that I still think the current proposal is the right move going forward.

PITingres · Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:34 am

As part of all this, I'd like to note that the plan involves KEEPING most of the airside terminal. It's not that the terminals are about to fall down as much as it's about the terminals being very out of sync with current demand / usage. The one thing that seems to be constructed poorly (per the document) is the short term garage; there's a poke at it in the document saying basically it's needed repairs from day 2. I don't think it's so much that the landside terminal is failing, as it is that it's a confluence of issues: most traffic is now O&D; there's insufficient room for the TSA theater; there's multiple moving parts that don't make sense in an O&D environment; the international arrival experience is shite (notwithstanding the very welcome, inventive, and (for airport personnel) onerous maneuvers which allow most local arrivals to skip the security re-check); the APM and baggage systems are money sinks. If PIT is going to be an O&D airport, it should reconfigure itself to suit.

I don't really think this is about a terminal that's about to fall down. I think it's about a configuration that makes no sense any more, and this is an opportune time to rework it. Maybe I'm believing the planning document too much, but I have to say it mostly makes sense.

pit1000 · Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:18 am

william wrote:
Why demolish the runway?

I’m sure there’s a good reason but on the surface it looks like a bad move. It is a full service runway that is used for takeoff and landing both ways, it is a cat iii ILS on 10L, it’s the longest by about 1000 feet and widest by 50 feet. With the focus on cargo and international flights that use more runways, I can see how this looks bad. Plus, I don’t know the separation between the existing 28c and 28r and if they can still do simultaneous approaches when 28c becomes 28L. I’m not sure if it’s still there but this runway used to have some arresting system I think and was a space shuttle alternative landing sight. I agree that four runways aren’t really needed anymore so I guess it’s this one or 28C. 32 should stay for crosswind capability and 28R for maximizing flow.

PITingres · Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:07 am

The plan appears to be to move the navaids from 28L to 28C and retire 28L. According to the planning document, 28L is in poor condition and would need to be reconstructed anyway, while 28C is in fair to good condition having been recently redone; plus, 28C is closer to the terminal than 28L. I don't think that there's a problem at all with simultaneous 28R / 28C approaches, although I'd expect such things would be relatively rare. The plan is indeed to keep 14/32 as a crosswind and reliever runway. I admit that the idea of going to the trouble of digging up 28L seems weird, but maybe an alternative is just covering it with dirt or something.

worldtraveler2 · Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:00 am

One of the most appealing features of the current landslide terminal is walking out from baggage claim to the car rental facility, vs. taking a shuttle bus to an off-site facility. Does anyone know if the proposed relocation retains this feature? Thanks.

flyPIT · Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:12 am

PITingres wrote:
As part of all this, I'd like to note that the plan involves KEEPING most of the airside terminal. It's not that the terminals are about to fall down as much as it's about the terminals being very out of sync with current demand / usage. The one thing that seems to be constructed poorly (per the document) is the short term garage; there's a poke at it in the document saying basically it's needed repairs from day 2. I don't think it's so much that the landside terminal is failing, as it is that it's a confluence of issues: most traffic is now O&D; there's insufficient room for the TSA theater; there's multiple moving parts that don't make sense in an O&D environment; the international arrival experience is shite (notwithstanding the very welcome, inventive, and (for airport personnel) onerous maneuvers which allow most local arrivals to skip the security re-check); the APM and baggage systems are money sinks. If PIT is going to be an O&D airport, it should reconfigure itself to suit.

I don't really think this is about a terminal that's about to fall down. I think it's about a configuration that makes no sense any more, and this is an opportune time to rework it. Maybe I'm believing the planning document too much, but I have to say it mostly makes sense.

This is a good summary. I would like to add I think all relevant regional economic development bureaus have come to the consensus that they want the airport to be a very modern front door for the entire region. At first I was skeptical about having the terminal's main functions all on one level but the more I look at it the more I like it. It looks to be a large enclosed area with much flexibility for the future, unlike the current landside building. "Big box loose fit" is the phrase Ms. Cassotis used.

On to the topic of the runway closure. This is what I disagree with most about the master plan. Yes, 28C and 28R have enough separation for simultaneous independent IFR arrivals. By literally one foot. They are separated by 4,301' (4,300' required). So yes they can add an ILS to the current center runway.

Here's my main problem with the plan they chose.

Right now one of the preferred configurations is to land on 32 (for noise abatement) and depart 28L from P. There is no conflict at all as both streams do not intersect each other. Arrivals on 32 and departures on 28L from P can happen independent and simultaneously. There is also no conflict with aircraft taxiing in with those taxiing out as the taxiway infrastructure allows for both to happen at the same time.

But look at their preferred option:

-Taxiing conflict. An aircraft just landed on 32 will taxi to the terminal westbound on E (the taxiway immediately north and parallel to the former 28C). An aircraft taxiing for departure on the former 28C will taxi eastbound on E. Aircraft will now need to wait on each other to pass, negating any fuel savings that 28C has over 28L by being closer to the terminal.

-Intersecting runways. An aircraft departing on the former 28C will need to cross 32 on taxi out. It will also need to cross 32 again on takeoff roll. That's two runway crossings for one operation. Two potential areas for a runway incursion plus reduced capacity. The FAA should shut this plan down based on that alone.

-The report mentioned major work/relocation needed on E to allow the former 28C to be used for Group V aircraft (B777/B744) without impacting the availability of E by other aircraft.

But if 28L is allowed to stay open:

- The two parallel taxiways would stay open eliminating the taxi in/taxi out conflict I mentioned

- The double runway crossings for aircraft departing the former 28C is eliminated

- The current 28L and parallel taxiway F are the only Group VI (B748/A380) capable runway/taxiway pair at the airport. If a Group VI aircraft needs to use 28R or 28C, the accompanying parallel taxiway can not be used by any other aircraft.

For those not familiar, here is an airport diagram with the taxiway designators I mentioned:

Hopefully the FAA is on board with the points I made above and interjects. Runway conflicts and incursions are a huge topic with them right now. They spent a LOT of money at CLE deconflicting the parallels from the cross runway up there. And CLE's 28 is not used nearly as much as 32 is at PIT.

Final point on this. The PIT master plan study included development potential of the land currently occupied by whatever runway they chose to close in their cost/benefit analysis. In other words, the land occupied by the current 28L (the runway they choose to close) is deemed suitable for non-aviation related development per the cost/benefit analysis. That's just ridiculous. There is so much land available for non-aviation development at PIT that it should never impede on the development/redevelopment of potential future runways or existing runways, be it the current 28L or the previously planned 4th parallel to the very south of the property which would have allowed for triple IFR arrival capacity in the decades ahead.

So hopefully the FAA dictates that 28L remains in place. Its in the worst shape of the four runways but the FAA largely provides the funds for runway maintenance and reconstruction so I don't think it would negatively impact the ACAA's financial planning.

OA940 · Sun Nov 19, 2017 9:41 am

Why close a runway? And if they do close one, why not 10C/28C? There will be much fewer conflicts and delays.

DeltaL1011Flyer · Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:13 pm

worldtraveler2 wrote:
One of the most appealing features of the current landslide terminal is walking out from baggage claim to the car rental facility, vs. taking a shuttle bus to an off-site facility. Does anyone know if the proposed relocation retains this feature? Thanks.

It looks like the rental car counters will be in the Ground Transportation Center (garage), connected via a skybridge to the terminal...cars will be in the garage, so I'd anticipate it should be just as good, if not better, compared to the current arrangement.

Runway28L · Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:30 pm

28R and 28C/28L parallel landings, while l I have definitely seen them, are rare. Mainly because 28R has NIMBYs and noise restrictions unlike the rest of the runways. So anything that doesn't use 28L will use 32. 28C is never used when 28L is in operation and vise versa.

I can see why the ACAA wants to do it, but I too disagree with the notion of closing 10R/28L. Yes, it may need major repairs soon compared to 10C/28C that was redone about 3-4 years ago and was extended to 10,775ft, along with 10L/28R that is currently being repaired. And there were occurrences of frequent runway excursions at 10C and 10R several years ago. But 10R has CAT III ILS compared to 10C/28C's regular GPS approach and 28L has CAT I ILS. 28L, as mentioned, is the widest and longest runway at PIT which would help with diversions and the 911th AW's new C-17s coming next year. Also, the 171st ARW's ramp is right next to 28L and they always use it for pattern work and keeping taxi times low. And as previously mentioned, two taxiways would exist if 28L was kept compared to one if 28C stays, which would help with maintaining traffic.

Flaps · Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:42 pm

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by removing 28L/10R. The airport is already swarming with developable land so that excuse is a red herring. If anything I expect an attempt at shifting funding from airfield work to terminal construction to come shortly if not already underway. Its the same mentality of doing things on the cheap that created the current situation. If a runway has to go the only logical one is 28C/10C. For all of the reasons mentioned above.

flightsimer · Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:34 am

flyPIT wrote:
On to the topic of the runway closure. This is what I disagree with most about the master plan. Yes, 28C and 28R have enough separation for simultaneous independent IFR arrivals. By literally one foot. They are separated by 4,301' (4,300' required). So yes they can add an ILS to the current center runway.

They could always Add a PRM if they were inside of that. But realistically, double ILS approaches are not a major need at PIT. Some of the approaches we have can't even be flown. For example, Republic can not utilize the CAT II approaches on the 28's because of the local terrain.

flyPIT wrote:
Here's my main problem with the plan they chose.

Right now one of the preferred configurations is to land on 32 (for noise abatement) and depart 28L from P. There is no conflict at all as both streams do not intersect each other. Arrivals on 32 and departures on 28L from P can happen independent and simultaneously. There is also no conflict with aircraft taxiing in with those taxiing out as the taxiway infrastructure allows for both to happen at the same time.

But look at their preferred option:

-Taxiing conflict. An aircraft just landed on 32 will taxi to the terminal westbound on E (the taxiway immediately north and parallel to the former 28C). An aircraft taxiing for departure on the former 28C will taxi eastbound on E. Aircraft will now need to wait on each other to pass, negating any fuel savings that 28C has over 28L by being closer to the terminal.

-Intersecting runways. An aircraft departing on the former 28C will need to cross 32 on taxi out. It will also need to cross 32 again on takeoff roll. That's two runway crossings for one operation. Two potential areas for a runway incursion plus reduced capacity. The FAA should shut this plan down based on that alone.

-The report mentioned major work/relocation needed on E to allow the former 28C to be used for Group V aircraft (B777/B744) without impacting the availability of E by other aircraft.

This is not a huge issue, In fact it's not an issue at all.

28L @ Papa is not a normal departure point. It is only currently being used because 28R is currently recieving repairs as well as the associated taxiways and is closed. 28L/10R is predominantly a landing only runway. If we are using the 10's, you take off 10C land 10L, a handful of times I have landed 10R without 10L being closed. If we're are using 28's, you take off 28R and land 28L or 32. The 171st is really the only consistent 28L/10R user. If we only had 28R and 28C, 28R will still be the preferred departure runway with the shortest taxi out from the terminal.

Now for argument's sake, say we need to take off 28C and you have a landing on 32. The Airport has two traffic flow patterns they could use. Say Echo is modified to allow Group V/VI aircraft and that a group V aircraft is taxiing on Echo to 28C. The 32 arrival can land and taxi via November to the terminal. If both aircraft are Group IV or smaller, they could land 32 and taxi in via Echo and the 28C departure can taxi around 32 altogether via November. Right now N is closed to aircraft of group V or larger, however I'm not sure if that is permanent or just because of work being done. I'm not on that side very often. If it's not a permanent closure, then a group V/VI aircraft can make the same taxi path as a Group IV going to 28C via November...

As for your second to last bullet point, if LGA can operate with just two runways that intersect each other and require two runway crossings (taking off on 13 and in some cases 4) then PIT can sure as hell do that as well.

flyPIT wrote:
But if 28L is allowed to stay open:

- The two parallel taxiways would stay open eliminating the taxi in/taxi out conflict I mentioned

- The double runway crossings for aircraft departing the former 28C is eliminated

- The current 28L and parallel taxiway F are the only Group VI (B748/A380) capable runway/taxiway pair at the airport. If a Group VI aircraft needs to use 28R or 28C, the accompanying parallel taxiway can not be used by any other aircraft.

How often does a group V or VI aircraft visit PIT? We get one group V twice a week and the occasional Group VI diversion. Closing down a parallel taxiway to accommodate the occasional group VI aircraft is not a major problem in the grand scheme of things.

flyPIT wrote:
For those not familiar, here is an airport diagram with the taxiway designators I mentioned:

Hopefully the FAA is on board with the points I made above and interjects. Runway conflicts and incursions are a huge topic with them right now. They spent a LOT of money at CLE deconflicting the parallels from the cross runway up there. And CLE's 28 is not used nearly as much as 32 is at PIT.

Final point on this. The PIT master plan study included development potential of the land currently occupied by whatever runway they chose to close in their cost/benefit analysis. In other words, the land occupied by the current 28L (the runway they choose to close) is deemed suitable for non-aviation related development per the cost/benefit analysis. That's just ridiculous. There is so much land available for non-aviation development at PIT that it should never impede on the development/redevelopment of potential future runways or existing runways, be it the current 28L or the previously planned 4th parallel to the very south of the property which would have allowed for triple IFR arrival capacity in the decades ahead.

So hopefully the FAA dictates that 28L remains in place. Its in the worst shape of the four runways but the FAA largely provides the funds for runway maintenance and reconstruction so I don't think it would negatively impact the ACAA's financial planning.

I don't see the FAA putting up a fight against closing 28L. There really is no need for PIT to have triple parallel runways when so many other hubs don't have them and are operating at a much greater capacity than PIT is and ever will be in the future.

As far as 28C goes, they can always widen it. But the length of the runway should not be an issue. It's just 225ft shorter than the longest runway at Newark while only being at 1,200ft MSL. Any aircraft PIT would see in the future should be able to operate out of 28C. A 28C takeoff from Papa should be possible by everything currently operating out of PIT.

flyPIT · Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:41 am

flightsimer wrote:
They could always Add a PRM if they were inside of that. But realistically, double ILS approaches are not a major need at PIT. Some of the approaches we have can't even be flown. For example, Republic can not utilize the CAT II approaches on the 28's because of the local terrain.

That's Republic's problem. They choose not to train their crews for Cat II Special Aircrew so the appraches are not in their Ops Specs. Why even bring up PRM since that won't be needed? Whether or not PIT really needs dual ILS is also irrelevant to the discussion because PIT WILL maintain that ability with either 28C or L, as they should.

flightsimer wrote:
This is not a huge issue, In fact it's not an issue at all.
28L @ Papa is not a normal departure point. It is only currently being used because 28R is currently recieving repairs as well as the associated taxiways and is closed. 28L/10R is predominantly a landing only runway. If we are using the 10's, you take off 10C land 10L, a handful of times I have landed 10R without 10L being closed. If we're are using 28's, you take off 28R and land 28L or 32. The 171st is really the only consistent 28L/10R user. If we only had 28R and 28C, 28R will still be the preferred departure runway with the shortest taxi out from the terminal.

- 28L/P has been a normal departure point for many many years.

-The 171st is hardly the only consistent user of 10R/28L, even when 10L/28R is available. I don't know where you get that from.

flightsimer wrote:
Now for argument's sake, say we need to take off 28C and you have a landing on 32. The Airport has two traffic flow patterns they could use. Say Echo is modified to allow Group V/VI aircraft and that a group V aircraft is taxiing on Echo to 28C. The 32 arrival can land and taxi via November to the terminal. If both aircraft are Group IV or smaller, they could land 32 and taxi in via Echo and the 28C departure can taxi around 32 altogether via November. Right now N is closed to aircraft of group V or larger, however I'm not sure if that is permanent or just because of work being done. I'm not on that side very often. If it's not a permanent closure, then a group V/VI aircraft can make the same taxi path as a Group IV going to 28C via November...

The whole notion of taxiing via November totally negates the fuel saving argument of keeping 10C/28C over 10R/28L.

flightsimer wrote:
As for your second to last bullet point, if LGA can operate with just two runways that intersect each other and require two runway crossings (taking off on 13 and in some cases 4) then PIT can sure as hell do that as well.

LGA is hardly the standard we should be shooting for. Just because it could be done does not mean it should be done. The safety argument has clearly been made IMHO by favoring departures from 28L/P vs crossing 32 twice.

flightsimer wrote:
How often does a group V or VI aircraft visit PIT? We get one group V twice a week and the occasional Group VI diversion. Closing down a parallel taxiway to accommodate the occasional group VI aircraft is not a major problem in the grand scheme of things.

Again I think you are missing the greater point. Keeping 10R/28L instead of 10C/28C offers so much more operational flexibility and increased margin of safety. Especially when 10L/28R is closed for snow removal, maintenance, or disabled aircraft.

flightsimer wrote:
I don't see the FAA putting up a fight against closing 28L. There really is no need for PIT to have triple parallel runways when so many other hubs don't have them and are operating at a much greater capacity than PIT is and ever will be in the future.

As far as 28C goes, they can always widen it. But the length of the runway should not be an issue. It's just 225ft shorter than the longest runway at Newark while only being at 1,200ft MSL. Any aircraft PIT would see in the future should be able to operate out of 28C. A 28C takeoff from Papa should be possible by everything currently operating out of PIT.

So PIT won't have triple parallels, that decision has already been made. The length or width of 10C/28C has not been questioned either because its not relevant.

Operational capability, capacity, and safety is increased by keeping 10R/28L and I wish I could have made that point at one of the public meetings.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net