OKCDCA wrote:

Saw an Alaska E170 fly by for the first time just a little while ago going into DCA. Shows that it will be going to Gate 16 which I thought was a UA gate. So are UA and AS sharing Gate 16 now and who will get to use Gate 24 now that it appears to be vacated?

MWAA took gate 16 away from UAL and it’s primary user is now Alaska/Virgin. UAL will be able to utilize it during some slow times but basically UAL is down to 4 gates (14/12/11/10) with jet bridges. Gate 10 has had a couple more rj parking spots added, but those pax will be walking on the ramp, if there are more then one rj parked there at a time.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

OKCDCA wrote:

Saw an Alaska E170 fly by for the first time just a little while ago going into DCA. Shows that it will be going to Gate 16 which I thought was a UA gate. So are UA and AS sharing Gate 16 now and who will get to use Gate 24 now that it appears to be vacated?

MWAA took gate 16 away from UAL and it’s primary user is now Alaska/Virgin. UAL will be able to utilize it during some slow times but basically UAL is down to 4 gates (14/12/11/10) with jet bridges. Gate 10 has had a couple more rj parking spots added, but those pax will be walking on the ramp, if there are more then one rj parked there at a time.

Just out of curiosity, why did they take it from UA? Was it not utilized to it's full extent?

ual763 wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

OKCDCA wrote:

Saw an Alaska E170 fly by for the first time just a little while ago going into DCA. Shows that it will be going to Gate 16 which I thought was a UA gate. So are UA and AS sharing Gate 16 now and who will get to use Gate 24 now that it appears to be vacated?

MWAA took gate 16 away from UAL and it’s primary user is now Alaska/Virgin. UAL will be able to utilize it during some slow times but basically UAL is down to 4 gates (14/12/11/10) with jet bridges. Gate 10 has had a couple more rj parking spots added, but those pax will be walking on the ramp, if there are more then one rj parked there at a time.

Just out of curiosity, why did they take it from UA? Was it not utilized to it's full extent?

As explained to me, the 50 seaters do not “require” a jet bridge to board/deplane so MWAA said that 4 gates was enough for UAL’s mainline ops. Off the top of my head I think UAL has 35 or so ops a day. So four jet bridges would allow X flights per jet bridge plus the ground boarding through gate 10 to cover daily ops. So there may be usage requirement in the lease, or a caveat for MWAA to be able to shift gates around as needed. The irrops/overnight tow plan is going to be really frustrating I bet.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

ual763 wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

MWAA took gate 16 away from UAL and it’s primary user is now Alaska/Virgin. UAL will be able to utilize it during some slow times but basically UAL is down to 4 gates (14/12/11/10) with jet bridges. Gate 10 has had a couple more rj parking spots added, but those pax will be walking on the ramp, if there are more then one rj parked there at a time.

Just out of curiosity, why did they take it from UA? Was it not utilized to it's full extent?

As explained to me, the 50 seaters do not “require” a jet bridge to board/deplane so MWAA said that 4 gates was enough for UAL’s mainline ops. Off the top of my head I think UAL has 35 or so ops a day. So four jet bridges would allow X flights per jet bridge plus the ground boarding through gate 10 to cover daily ops. So there may be usage requirement in the lease, or a caveat for MWAA to be able to shift gates around as needed. The irrops/overnight tow plan is going to be really frustrating I bet.

Interesting, thanks! I bet UA was thrilled with that decision.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

ual763 wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

MWAA took gate 16 away from UAL and it’s primary user is now Alaska/Virgin. UAL will be able to utilize it during some slow times but basically UAL is down to 4 gates (14/12/11/10) with jet bridges. Gate 10 has had a couple more rj parking spots added, but those pax will be walking on the ramp, if there are more then one rj parked there at a time.

Just out of curiosity, why did they take it from UA? Was it not utilized to it's full extent?

As explained to me, the 50 seaters do not “require” a jet bridge to board/deplane so MWAA said that 4 gates was enough for UAL’s mainline ops. Off the top of my head I think UAL has 35 or so ops a day. So four jet bridges would allow X flights per jet bridge plus the ground boarding through gate 10 to cover daily ops. So there may be usage requirement in the lease, or a caveat for MWAA to be able to shift gates around as needed. The irrops/overnight tow plan is going to be really frustrating I bet.

UA is still using gate 16 intermittently, though. The combined Alaska/Virgin operation at DCA has something like 8-9 flights a day; timing and slots means they probably need two gates at some times, but they certainly don't need two gates all of the time.

atcsundevil wrote:

estorilm wrote:

edit: I suppose I should ask, how did all these airports fare during the weather event?

IAD: Not great. Lots of windshear. Went into the hold for about an hour and a half on Friday due to the VIP movement, which was quickly followed by the evacuation of the tower. They moved over to the ramp tower and got things going again, but IAD ops are severely hampered when restricted to Runway 30. Things were a little better on Saturday, and things were pretty much back to normal by Sunday and Monday. It definitely seemed like there were a lot of extra flights Sunday and yesterday to make up for it, they got pretty busy at times.

DCA: Pretty well, actually. There were so many cancelations that there was hardly any traffic headed there. I think they might have been using 15/33 for a while though, so that's what caused a lot of cancelations. It seemed like only SWA was trying to get in.

BWI: Didn't seem to have much of an effect, as far as I could tell. Their runway setup is far more conducive to wind conditions like that. Traffic had no problem getting in and out.

RIC/ORF/PHF: Mostly bad. Lots of go arounds and diversions. Some ended up in RDU (which had some go arounds, but everyone got in eventually), and some returned to destination, mostly back to CLT or ATL.

estorilm wrote:

ATC was very interesting.

I would have used another word for it! Lol. I'm sure it depended on the facility. The center was extremely boring, but Potomac and the respective towers were earning their pay.

Wow thanks for the information, I had ZERO clue it was that bad, but it doesn't surprise me at all. I could hardly walk around much less imagine flying a plane!

How did AF1 get there, was it repositioned for the takeoff at IAD? Seems strange, I never thought about T/O restrictions in winds for a plane like that, but obviously you don't want to take chances.

So the circle-to-land was active? Or was the airport just closed for a while essentially? That's amazing they evacuated the tower - I can only imagine what it sounded like or felt like up there when they started gusting over 70, yikes.

Anyways, thanks again for the info! I work in a building about about 1/2mi from the threshold to 1L/19R

estorilm wrote:

Wow thanks for the information, I had ZERO clue it was that bad, but it doesn't surprise me at all. I could hardly walk around much less imagine flying a plane!

How did AF1 get there, was it repositioned for the takeoff at IAD? Seems strange, I never thought about T/O restrictions in winds for a plane like that, but obviously you don't want to take chances.

So the circle-to-land was active? Or was the airport just closed for a while essentially? That's amazing they evacuated the tower - I can only imagine what it sounded like or felt like up there when they started gusting over 70, yikes.

Anyways, thanks again for the info! I work in a building about about 1/2mi from the threshold to 1L/19R

It repositioned from ADW. I'm guessing it could have departed from ADW, but that would have been unnecessarily risky.

I don't know nothin' about circle-to-land. I'm not a tower/TRACON guy. All I know is IAD went into the hold and a ground stop was implemented. Generally when the tower goes ATC Zero, the airfield is closed, and everything stops. I'm assuming they evacuated because the glass in the tower wasn't rated for those wind speeds. The same thing happened at PHX when I worked there a few years ago. There's always a contingency to reopen the airport — apparently IAD tower controllers move to the ramp tower, and IIRC, PHX controllers went to the top of the parking deck with a handheld radio!

Looks like IAD is picking up northeast diversions. Just looked up from my desk and caught a QR A359 on approach.

https://www.flightradar24.com/QTR727/10a2838a

estorilm wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

estorilm wrote:

edit: I suppose I should ask, how did all these airports fare during the weather event?

IAD: Not great. Lots of windshear. Went into the hold for about an hour and a half on Friday due to the VIP movement, which was quickly followed by the evacuation of the tower. They moved over to the ramp tower and got things going again, but IAD ops are severely hampered when restricted to Runway 30. Things were a little better on Saturday, and things were pretty much back to normal by Sunday and Monday. It definitely seemed like there were a lot of extra flights Sunday and yesterday to make up for it, they got pretty busy at times.

DCA: Pretty well, actually. There were so many cancelations that there was hardly any traffic headed there. I think they might have been using 15/33 for a while though, so that's what caused a lot of cancelations. It seemed like only SWA was trying to get in.

BWI: Didn't seem to have much of an effect, as far as I could tell. Their runway setup is far more conducive to wind conditions like that. Traffic had no problem getting in and out.

RIC/ORF/PHF: Mostly bad. Lots of go arounds and diversions. Some ended up in RDU (which had some go arounds, but everyone got in eventually), and some returned to destination, mostly back to CLT or ATL.

estorilm wrote:

ATC was very interesting.

I would have used another word for it! Lol. I'm sure it depended on the facility. The center was extremely boring, but Potomac and the respective towers were earning their pay.

How did AF1 get there, was it repositioned for the takeoff at IAD? Seems strange, I never thought about T/O restrictions in winds for a plane like that, but obviously you don't want to take chances.

They ferry the plane over beforehand, and then fly the President out to IAD with Marine One.

This is something they've done before. Here's an example from the Obama administration where they departed from IAD for a trip to Saudi Arabia because they expected a full load and needed some additional runway length at MTOW:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-swit ... ip-abroad/

G4 just added a nonstop from RIC to BNA. The flight starts June 14th and is currently listed as seasonal. AA used to fly RIC to BNA nonstop back when they had a hub in Nashville. Current PDEW between to two cities is 53 per day but think it could easily bump up to 100 pax per day with a good carrier and the right fare structure.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 401908002/

WN continues to get their ass handed to them in the Richmond market by B6 and G4 and soon to be Spirit. WN should have started a BNA to RIC route years ago. As I have mentioned, WN abandoned a profitable route between RIC and MCO that they got in the Air Tran merger. B6 immediately took over the route has now upgraded it to two A320 flights a day.

With all the LCC's adding flights at RIC who needs WN....right? They can stick to their 3 flights a day to ATL and let their competition profit at their expense.

Just found a press release on the G4 RIC to BNA nonstop. There will initially be two flights per week. Alleigant has said that depending on demand during time period it’s likely the route will be extended. In my opinion this is a given as I strongly suspect the route will be very successful.


Here is the link:



http://ideastations.org/radio/news/alle ... hville-ric

ElroyJetson wrote:

G4 just added a nonstop from RIC to BNA. The flight starts June 14th and is currently listed as seasonal. AA used to fly RIC to BNA nonstop back when they had a hub in Nashville. Current PDEW between to two cities is 53 per day but think it could easily bump up to 100 pax per day with a good carrier and the right fare structure.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 401908002/

WN continues to get their ass handed to them in the Richmond market by B6 and G4 and soon to be Spirit. WN should have started a BNA to RIC route years ago. As I have mentioned, WN abandoned a profitable route between RIC and MCO that they got in the Air Tran merger. B6 immediately took over the route has now upgraded it to two A320 flights a day.

With all the LCC's adding flights at RIC who needs WN....right? They can stick to their 3 flights a day to ATL and let their competition profit at their expense.

WN could still add RIC-MDW, RIC-DEN, and RIC-LAS nonstop service. MDW and LAS currently have no nonstop service from RIC, and UA is currently the only airline to serve DEN nonstop from RIC. WN has also recently stated that it wants to further expand at LAS. WN also has nonstop service from MDW, DEN, and LAS to destinations that WN doesn't serve nonstop from ATL.

AA and UA are currently the only airlines that serve ORD nonstop from RIC, but NK could possibly add RIC-ORD nonstop service.

jplatts wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

G4 just added a nonstop from RIC to BNA. The flight starts June 14th and is currently listed as seasonal. AA used to fly RIC to BNA nonstop back when they had a hub in Nashville. Current PDEW between to two cities is 53 per day but think it could easily bump up to 100 pax per day with a good carrier and the right fare structure.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... 401908002/

WN continues to get their ass handed to them in the Richmond market by B6 and G4 and soon to be Spirit. WN should have started a BNA to RIC route years ago. As I have mentioned, WN abandoned a profitable route between RIC and MCO that they got in the Air Tran merger. B6 immediately took over the route has now upgraded it to two A320 flights a day.

With all the LCC's adding flights at RIC who needs WN....right? They can stick to their 3 flights a day to ATL and let their competition profit at their expense.

WN could still add RIC-MDW, RIC-DEN, and RIC-LAS nonstop service. MDW and LAS currently have no nonstop service from RIC, and UA is currently the only airline to serve DEN nonstop from RIC. WN has also recently stated that it wants to further expand at LAS. WN also has nonstop service from MDW, DEN, and LAS to destinations that WN doesn't serve nonstop from ATL.

AA and UA are currently the only airlines that serve ORD nonstop from RIC, but NK could possibly add RIC-ORD nonstop service.

I hope you're right but frankly I doubt it. WN said years ago they would add RIC MDW and it never happened. RIC is growing rapidly and the city has always had a very strong economy. The airport sets pax records every month for growth. B6 has expanded rapidly and is doing quite well. Spirit is adding new service and G4 is expanding. UA recently started an A319 flight to DEN and added a second a flight with a E175.

Yet WN sleepily bumps along and does nothing. I wish I could give you a logical explanation but I cannot. Too bad,,,,but the good news three other LCC's and filling the void. Good for them and the city.

News link: January record pax growth. RIC has experienced record growth in 42 out of the last 47 months. https://www.henricocitizen.com/articles ... ng-growth/

ElroyJetson wrote:

WN continues to get their ass handed to them in the Richmond market by B6 and G4 and soon to be Spirit. WN should have started a BNA to RIC route years ago. As I have mentioned, WN abandoned a profitable route between RIC and MCO that they got in the Air Tran merger. B6 immediately took over the route has now upgraded it to two A320 flights a day.

With all the LCC's adding flights at RIC who needs WN....right? They can stick to their 3 flights a day to ATL and let their competition profit at their expense.

They've done themselves absolutely no favors by ignoring the Richmond market. AirTran served ATL, MCO, FLL, LGA, and maybe even PHL and BOS (or was that from PHF? I can't remember). They had a strong operation before the merger, and had a great loyalty base. I flew them all the time, not because I cared about cheaper fares, but because I generally liked the airline. Not only that, they helped completely turn RIC around (along with B6) and bring fares to a reasonable level, and I always made it a point to support both airlines. For years, RIC was one of the most expensive airports in the nation, and AirTran managed to change that almost overnight.

The issue with WN is they've been so stretched on their fleet post merger that they don't have much wiggle room for expansion. Dropping the 712 set them back on fleet growth for at least two years, and the 733/735 retirements have set them back at least another year, maybe more. They've also been so adverse to adding longer stage routes in recent years, because Wall Street gets upset when they do.

Because they've neglected RIC, there's absolutely no loyalty base for them anymore. Whatever goodwill earned by AirTran is long gone. How could there be loyalty with only one destination served maybe three times daily? I'm not sure why they even bothered to stay. I'm willing to bet WN could have viable markets to MCO, FLL, BWI, MDW, DAL and/or HOU, DEN, and PHX. I'm not sure I understand their reluctance to get involved in RIC, because the market is most certainly there. They've made their model work successfully in much smaller, less affluent cities. Either way, it's very strange to me.

atcsundevil wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

WN continues to get their ass handed to them in the Richmond market by B6 and G4 and soon to be Spirit. WN should have started a BNA to RIC route years ago. As I have mentioned, WN abandoned a profitable route between RIC and MCO that they got in the Air Tran merger. B6 immediately took over the route has now upgraded it to two A320 flights a day.

With all the LCC's adding flights at RIC who needs WN....right? They can stick to their 3 flights a day to ATL and let their competition profit at their expense.

They've done themselves absolutely no favors by ignoring the Richmond market. AirTran served ATL, MCO, FLL, LGA, and maybe even PHL and BOS (or was that from PHF? I can't remember). They had a strong operation before the merger, and had a great loyalty base. I flew them all the time, not because I cared about cheaper fares, but because I generally liked the airline. Not only that, they helped completely turn RIC around (along with B6) and bring fares to a reasonable level, and I always made it a point to support both airlines. For years, RIC was one of the most expensive airports in the nation, and AirTran managed to change that almost overnight.

The issue with WN is they've been so stretched on their fleet post merger that they don't have much wiggle room for expansion. Dropping the 712 set them back on fleet growth for at least two years, and the 733/735 retirements have set them back at least another year, maybe more. They've also been so adverse to adding longer stage routes in recent years, because Wall Street gets upset when they do.

Because they've neglected RIC, there's absolutely no loyalty base for them anymore. Whatever goodwill earned by AirTran is long gone. How could there be loyalty with only one destination served maybe three times daily? I'm not sure why they even bothered to stay. I'm willing to bet WN could have viable markets to MCO, FLL, BWI, MDW, DAL and/or HOU, DEN, and PHX. I'm not sure I understand their reluctance to get involved in RIC, because the market is most certainly there. They've made their model work successfully in much smaller, less affluent cities. Either way, it's very strange to me.

I agree that WN was facing plane shortages with the retirement of the 737-300 and 737-500 planes and with the transfer of the AirTran 717's over to DL. In addition, WN was busy with post-Wright Amendment expansion at DAL, the completion of the WN-FL merger, and the expansion of DCA 4 years ago.

Hi all!
New Washingtonian (well, NoVa/Arlington County)

I've been following along for a while, but I thought I'd ask re IAD:

1. Has there been any update on UA moving forward with a new C/D? That place continues to be an embarrassment, especially after arriving from FRA or VIE.

2. What percentage of UA flights at IAD are mainline?

3. Would a theoretical new C/D finally eliminate the need for those godawful people movers? Perhaps a single customs/immigration checkpoint for UA/Star with all UA/Star arrivals coming into new C/D and new people movers buses (like Neoplan or Cobus) moving O&D traffic to the IAB.

I've not been through IAD as an international arrival since moving, so I've not gotten the chance to use the IAB yet.

5. Finally, is there an automated baggage system from the terminal to A/B and/or C/D? Or is everything hauled?

Sorry for so many questions

OKCDCA wrote:

Saw an Alaska E170 fly by for the first time just a little while ago going into DCA. Shows that it will be going to Gate 16 which I thought was a UA gate. So are UA and AS sharing Gate 16 now and who will get to use Gate 24 now that it appears to be vacated?

I don't think Alaska flies E170s. I believe they use 738 for their transcons.

capitalflyer wrote:

OKCDCA wrote:

Saw an Alaska E170 fly by for the first time just a little while ago going into DCA. Shows that it will be going to Gate 16 which I thought was a UA gate. So are UA and AS sharing Gate 16 now and who will get to use Gate 24 now that it appears to be vacated?

I don't think Alaska flies E170s. I believe they use 738 for their transcons.

Skywest flies them under the Alaska name. And they're flying into DCA from DAL as a result of the Virgin merger.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SKW ... /KDCA/KDAL

LOWS wrote:

1. Has there been any update on UA moving forward with a new C/D? That place continues to be an embarrassment, especially after arriving from FRA or VIE.

It's definitely an embarrassment, but it appears as if the embarrassment will continue. There was news a new months back that UA and MWAA were in talks, but apparently they've gone nowhere. They are, however, spending several million to refresh the concourse in the short term

LOWS wrote:

2. What percentage of UA flights at IAD are mainline?

It's typically higher than most UA hubs. I think it's usually between 50-60%, if I remember correctly.

LOWS wrote:

3. Would a theoretical new C/D finally eliminate the need for those godawful people movers? Perhaps a single customs/immigration checkpoint for UA/Star with all UA/Star arrivals coming into new C/D and new people movers buses (like Neoplan or Cobus) moving O&D traffic to the IAB.

I don't think it would entirely. They'd still use them to transfer passengers to the IAB for terminating international arrivals. They'd probably keep the plane mates for remote stands, too. I do think it should mostly eliminate their use for transfer between terminals, but it may not entirely. There is only one stop constructed for the entire C/D concourse, so they may continue running shuttles for the far gates on a theoretical new terminal.

LOWS wrote:

5. Finally, is there an automated baggage system from the terminal to A/B and/or C/D? Or is everything hauled?

No, I don't think so.

atcsundevil wrote:

LOWS wrote:

]3. Would a theoretical new C/D finally eliminate the need for those godawful people movers? Perhaps a single customs/immigration checkpoint for UA/Star with all UA/Star arrivals coming into new C/D and new people movers buses (like Neoplan or Cobus) moving O&D traffic to the IAB.

I don't think it would entirely. They'd still use them to transfer passengers to the IAB for terminating international arrivals. They'd probably keep the plane mates for remote stands, too. I do think it should mostly eliminate their use for transfer between terminals, but it may not entirely. There is only one stop constructed for the entire C/D concourse, so they may continue running shuttles for the far gates on a theoretical new terminal.

I would think they'd still keep some for remote stands.

The long-term plan calls for an additional AeroTrain station for a future concourse D, as well as a separate tunnel that would be solely for international arrivals. This tunnel would serve not just a new C/D but also the existing international gates at A/B, which would pave the way for the complete elimination of the people movers.

LOWS wrote:

5. Finally, is there an automated baggage system from the terminal to A/B and/or C/D? Or is everything hauled?

No, I don't think so.

I don't think there is, but I know that was part of the original plans for Tier 2 (aka the new C/D): http://flydulles.com/iad/dulles-concour ... assessment

The plans called for a tunnel for tugs, as well as a baggage conveyor and for pedestrian walk-backs to A/B.

LOWS wrote:

Hi all!
New Washingtonian (well, NoVa/Arlington County)

I've been following along for a while, but I thought I'd ask re IAD:

1. Has there been any update on UA moving forward with a new C/D? That place continues to be an embarrassment, especially after arriving from FRA or VIE.

2. What percentage of UA flights at IAD are mainline?

3. Would a theoretical new C/D finally eliminate the need for those godawful people movers? Perhaps a single customs/immigration checkpoint for UA/Star with all UA/Star arrivals coming into new C/D and new people movers buses (like Neoplan or Cobus) moving O&D traffic to the IAB.

I've not been through IAD as an international arrival since moving, so I've not gotten the chance to use the IAB yet.

5. Finally, is there an automated baggage system from the terminal to A/B and/or C/D? Or is everything hauled?

Sorry for so many questions

Hey neighbor! Welcome to the DC area!
Others above have said some of what I will say below:

1. Having been out of MWAA for over a year now, I'm not quite sure what the extent talks or negotiations have progressed RE a new Tier II building. Last I heard through the grapevine, they were reaching an impasse partially because UAL didn't want to commit to the level of funding required, partially because MWAA couldn't go for another major spend at the facility. Since I last received that info, some things have changed including that arrangement they worked out regarding cost splitting between IAD/DCA to reduce emplanement costs, oh yeah and the folks in Richmond threw some support IAD's way too. Some of you on here will know better than I would the level of UAL's commitment to IAD. For local government, the outstanding issue is that MWAA currently has quite a bit of debt to be serviced from all of the capital projects since Y2K. Additionally, with DCMP Phase II still not complete, I'm not sure what their ability to finance a major capital project would be, given the risk prior to project closeout. DCA security project also doesn't make anything easier by my understanding. I feel confident that by 2040 we will have something new. By 2030 we would be lucky, probably requiring some major reorganization by a legacy, a new carrier, or other special circumstances. Those are just my wild guesses.

Additionally, I think they already did all of the permitting and environmental stuff for Tier II back in the late 90s early 00s, and I think they would need to redo that in order to proceed. Maybe an EA supplement would suffice in lieu of a full blown EIS. I have no clue. That wouldn't affect the trigger pull to start the project, just the amount of time required to implement. Mind you that they would probably also extend the west tunnel of the APM to Tier II as part of the project (and they may be required to do so per their previous EIS to meet promised GHG emissions levels), which would cost extra $$.

3. I think the best bet to see the people movers disappear would be the shuttering of one of the suppliers that still supplies the parts for those things. Obviously they would need to retrofit the existing docks at the terminal and the concourses, but I don't think that would be a big engineering ask aside from installing an elevator or two in order to handle ADA compliance. As far as an APM system, obviously Tier II wouldn't necessarily require the construction of dedicated APM tunnels to the IAB. This was originally proposed and designed but axed due to costs. I'm not sure if the final as-built config of the terminal APM station/tunnels precludes the construction of the once proposed IAB APM or not. It doesn't seem to based on the environmental docs that are online, but they aren't detailed CAD drawings, just diagrams for environmental filings.

5. I don't know what you include within the scope of the word "automated" you use, but there are both east and west baggage tunnels that run from the midfield concourses back to the terminal, so if your question was whether baggage trucks pull the bags back to the terminal, no this is not the case. As far as any further level of "automation" I have no clue.

Check out Figure ES-1 in this PDF for a drawing of the proposed IAB APM and also a call out of both the East and West Baggage tunnels. Just a heads up, the PDF is like 600 pages, might take a while to load when you open it.

http://www.metwashairports.com/sites/default/files/archive/mwaa.com/file/Final%20Dulles%20Tier%202%20EA%20August%202002.pdf

I still can't quite believe how extraordinarily expensive the original IAD APM plans are. A full twin loop? With a separate APM system for international arrivals?

What I wonder is if there's a budget option out there to make use of the existing APM system for international arrivals that might help alleviate the cost issues. At MIA, the Skytrain on Concourse D uses the same platform, with two cars used for domestic passengers and two cars used for international arrivals, with a separate set of station access for sterile passengers.

Perhaps there's a way to retrofit the existing aerotrain to accommodate both domestic moves between the terminals as well as sterile arrivals, moving people from the concourses to the IAB. It would require some additional sterile corridors and sterile vertical circulation to the stations. It would involve modifying the stations to keep the passengers separate, but surely this would be cheaper than the cost of building an entirely separate IAB APM.

blockski wrote:

I would think they'd still keep some for remote stands.

I didn't even realize they still did hardstand arrivals. I thought Saudia and Qatar were using the Z gates?

MWAAdude wrote:

Hey neighbor! Welcome to the DC area!

Thanks! I'm so happy to be here! It's not SZG or VIE but the LH 748 and OS 763 are comfortable enough

Thanks all for the thoughtful replies. I look forward to following along.

LOWS wrote:

blockski wrote:

I would think they'd still keep some for remote stands.

I didn't even realize they still did hardstand arrivals. I thought Saudia and Qatar were using the Z gates?

No, the Z gates can't accommodate widebodies. Saudia and Qatar use A/B.

And yes, they still do hardstand arrivals, mostly for IRROPS.

blockski wrote:

LOWS wrote:

blockski wrote:

I would think they'd still keep some for remote stands.

I didn't even realize they still did hardstand arrivals. I thought Saudia and Qatar were using the Z gates?

No, the Z gates can't accommodate widebodies. Saudia and Qatar use A/B.

And yes, they still do hardstand arrivals, mostly for IRROPS.

Saudia uses gate A31. Qatar uses B41/43 for arrivals when Brussels Airlines is not flying during the winter. Otherwise, Qatar will use the R gates which are the hardstands. I believe this is the only regular scheduled flight that has to use a handstand to deplane, but it’s not that big of a deal since the Plane Mate would still have to take them to customs at a gate. The plane is always towed to gate A31 or B37 then for departure.
.

Also, JK Moving has submitted a bid to buy the western lands that MWAA is selling according to this article.

https://www.bisnow.com/washington-dc/ne ... -85814#ath

CapitalAvGeek wrote:

Also, JK Moving has submitted a bid to buy the western lands that MWAA is selling according to this article.

https://www.bisnow.com/washington-dc/ne ... -85814#ath

Getting something would be good, but that doesn't seem to be a great deal for MWAA. Selling rather than leasing, to a buyer that won't have a direct potential for airport-connected development.

It would be one thing if it were for a parcel that's just used as buffer space, but this land has more potential than that.

atcsundevil wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

WN continues to get their ass handed to them in the Richmond market by B6 and G4 and soon to be Spirit. WN should have started a BNA to RIC route years ago. As I have mentioned, WN abandoned a profitable route between RIC and MCO that they got in the Air Tran merger. B6 immediately took over the route has now upgraded it to two A320 flights a day.

With all the LCC's adding flights at RIC who needs WN....right? They can stick to their 3 flights a day to ATL and let their competition profit at their expense.

They've done themselves absolutely no favors by ignoring the Richmond market. AirTran served ATL, MCO, FLL, LGA, and maybe even PHL and BOS (or was that from PHF? I can't remember). They had a strong operation before the merger, and had a great loyalty base. I flew them all the time, not because I cared about cheaper fares, but because I generally liked the airline. Not only that, they helped completely turn RIC around (along with B6) and bring fares to a reasonable level, and I always made it a point to support both airlines. For years, RIC was one of the most expensive airports in the nation, and AirTran managed to change that almost overnight.

The issue with WN is they've been so stretched on their fleet post merger that they don't have much wiggle room for expansion. Dropping the 712 set them back on fleet growth for at least two years, and the 733/735 retirements have set them back at least another year, maybe more. They've also been so adverse to adding longer stage routes in recent years, because Wall Street gets upset when they do.


Because they've neglected RIC, there's absolutely no loyalty base for them anymore. Whatever goodwill earned by AirTran is long gone. How could there be loyalty with only one destination served maybe three times daily? I'm not sure why they even bothered to stay. I'm willing to bet WN could have viable markets to MCO, FLL, BWI, MDW, DAL and/or HOU, DEN, and PHX. I'm not sure I understand their reluctance to get involved in RIC, because the market is most certainly there. They've made their model work successfully in much smaller, less affluent cities. Either way, it's very strange to me.

I completely agree with your comments. Right on target imho. I flew Air Tran frequently when I lived in Richmond. Probably 4-5 times from RIC to MCO on Air Trans 717's. The flights were always close to full and I've always liked the 717. I also flew from RIC to LAS on Air Tran through ATL, I believe on 737-700's. Again, the flights were packed

And yes there was a real loyalty in the Richmond market for Air Tran which I agree WN has squandered. I think WN doesn't care much at all about O&D traffic from RIC. I think they see RIC as a market to connect pax from their midwest or west coast strongholds through ATL, and feel they have enough traffic in their system to fully support this strategy. In fairness they probably do, but I think they are missing a lot of opportunities. Fortunately, B6 has really developed a loyal customer base in Richmond and they have expanded quite a bit as a result.

At this point I don't think RIC really needs WN. There are now three LCC's in the market and that is a very good thing. Maybe WN will one day come to their senses but I seriously doubt it.

MWAAdude wrote:

Check out Figure ES-1 in this PDF for a drawing of the proposed IAB APM and also a call out of both the East and West Baggage tunnels. Just a heads up, the PDF is like 600 pages, might take a while to load when you open it.

http://www.metwashairports.com/sites/default/files/archive/mwaa.com/file/Final%20Dulles%20Tier%202%20EA%20August%202002.pdf

Thanks for that, that's interesting background. I'm not sure why the APM has to go all the way to the other end of the field for maintenance though? Is there nowhere closer they could put it? It just seems like an awfully long tunnel to build, unless they're thinking another concourse that way in 30+ years

LOWS wrote:

It just seems like an awfully long tunnel to build, unless they're thinking another concourse that way in 30+ years

That was exactly what they were thinking. They had to put the maintenance building in a place where it wouldn't occupy space used by Tier III, Tier IV, or the future planned south terminal. I know that their plans seem kind of crazy compared to the current utilization of the facility, but IAD has always been about preserving the future capacity and not precluding future development. The other thing to consider was that because they had already planned on using a TBM to mine the east APM tunnel, the incremental cost of going an extra 1000-2000 feet (however much it is) was probably well worth it compared to the prospect of having to demolish and move the facility if Tier III or Tier IV was built. Mind you that all of the computers that drive the APMs and the control center are currently there, so if they were going to maintain operations while they were relocating that facility, it would require them to purchase a second set of all of that stuff and then run testing to confirm that the track circuits and everything else were being properly understood by the new control center. Basically, just simpler to keep the TBM going a bit longer when long term they want that tunnel anyway. Now, if I'm correct, they only have one bore that goes all the way down to the MX facility. I can't remember. A youtube search would probably provide that answer if somebody has a video of the vehicle turn at Concourse C station.

Not entirely related, but somewhat relevant: The reason that this calculus didn't apply to the west APM tunnel and a station at Tier II Concourse D was probably that the station was over half of that scope item's marginal cost. That would have required an additional ped tunnel under ground, additional tunneling to get to the position of Tier II Concourse D, and then all of the associated vertical circulation. For some reason, the number that I've got in my head for the ped tunnel alone would be $25-40m, then the station fit out and vertical circulation would probably get you up to around $125m, so with the tunneling, tunnel fit out, extra vehicle purchase (because longer tunnel requires more vehicles), and refit of existing Concourse D to accept the station, it probably saved them around $250-300m by not doing that. Again, mostly just my wild guesses/opinions.

It appears that the increase to x2 daily RIC-DEN has been made permanent. It extends through at least November. I don't know if it will be x1 A319 x1 E175 like it will be this summer, or if both flights will be on E175s in the fall, but it's a nice to see the flight doing well.

On the other hand, RIC-IAH will be operated less than daily in July. In the past, it's been at least x2-3 daily in the summer. Clearly UA intend to route more west coast passengers through DEN instead. I don't know if the route will continue to operate on the E145, but I assume it probably will.

blockski wrote:

capitalflyer wrote:

OKCDCA wrote:

Saw an Alaska E170 fly by for the first time just a little while ago going into DCA. Shows that it will be going to Gate 16 which I thought was a UA gate. So are UA and AS sharing Gate 16 now and who will get to use Gate 24 now that it appears to be vacated?

I don't think Alaska flies E170s. I believe they use 738 for their transcons.

Skywest flies them under the Alaska name. And they're flying into DCA from DAL as a result of the Virgin merger.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SKW ... /KDCA/KDAL

Interesting. I didn't remember that Virgin flew to DAL from DCA. This is a downgauge as I imagine Virgin flew a 319 on the route before. Unless load factors were such that a 170 makes more sense.

Things are going to dicey overnight it seems. Fingers crossed for anyone traveling through our airports tomorrow.

graham697 wrote:

Things are going to dicey overnight it seems. Fingers crossed for anyone traveling through our airports tomorrow.

MWAA has a Board Meeting scheduled for tomorrow, but it may be subject to change with the weather.

The meeting agenda and supporting documents have been posted online, however: http://www.mwaa.com/about/march-21-2018 ... ernational

They include January's stats: http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... eports.pdf

Metro construction updates (complete with lots of pictures):
http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... 1_2018.pdf
http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... cility.pdf

An update on DCA construction (also with a few pictures):
http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... ourney.pdf

graham697 wrote:

Things are going to dicey overnight it seems. Fingers crossed for anyone traveling through our airports tomorrow.

I would anticipate a lot of cancelations from RDU to BOS, particularly IAD, DCA, BWI, PHL, JFK, EWR, LGA, and BOS. Impact to the NY Metros alone is enough to just about shut down the northeast, so even if the DC Metros escape the worst of it, they'll still have huge numbers of cancelations. DCA may not be impacted too badly, but IAD will almost certainly see more snow. The rain and wintry mix is going to be bad news when snow falls on top, because it's going to be hard to clear with a layer of ice underneath.

Ruh roh.

https://twitter.com/capitalweather/stat ... 5922523138

graham697 wrote:

Ruh roh.

https://twitter.com/capitalweather/stat ... 5922523138

Well, the morning International arrivals (SA, AI, ET, EK, NH, KE, and UA from GRU) are all still on as scheduled. Hopefully things won't get too bad at IAD because if both DC and NYC are closed then the Northeast is doomed

SkyWest has been selected to provide essential air service from PGB (Plattsburgh) to IAD with 12X weekly non stop flights on a CRJ2. This ends PenAir flights from BOS to PGB.

https://airlineinfo.com/ostpdf101/427.pdf

atcsundevil wrote:

It appears that the increase to x2 daily RIC-DEN has been made permanent. It extends through at least November. I don't know if it will be x1 A319 x1 E175 like it will be this summer, or if both flights will be on E175s in the fall, but it's a nice to see the flight doing well.

On the other hand, RIC-IAH will be operated less than daily in July. In the past, it's been at least x2-3 daily in the summer. Clearly UA intend to route more west coast passengers through DEN instead. I don't know if the route will continue to operate on the E145, but I assume it probably will.

I just checked and it looks like UA still has two daily RIC-IAH flights over the summer unless I'm reading it wrong. A morning E145 departure and a late afternoon E145 departure.

IAH offers connections to Mexico and Central and South America that DEN does not. I hope the full IAH schedule remains.

iadadd wrote:

graham697 wrote:

Ruh roh.

https://twitter.com/capitalweather/stat ... 5922523138

Well, the morning International arrivals (SA, AI, ET, EK, NH, KE, and UA from GRU) are all still on as scheduled. Hopefully things won't get too bad at IAD because if both DC and NYC are closed then the Northeast is doomed

If things got real bad at IAD where would those flights go? RIC is going to be in the same boat, and probably ORF/PHF as well. The storm's predicted to cover all of Pennsylvania and most of Ohio and Kentucky too. Could they continue on to CLT or ATL?

iadadd wrote:

graham697 wrote:

Ruh roh.

https://twitter.com/capitalweather/stat ... 5922523138

Well, the morning International arrivals (SA, AI, ET, EK, NH, KE, and UA from GRU) are all still on as scheduled. Hopefully things won't get too bad at IAD because if both DC and NYC are closed then the Northeast is doomed

I am predicting the northeast will be doomed either way. The wind alone will spoil tomorrow for everyone, never mind the snow. In trails and EDCTs for everyone!

ElroyJetson wrote:

I just checked and it looks like UA still has two daily RIC-IAH flights over the summer unless I'm reading it wrong. A morning E145 departure and a late afternoon E145 departure.

IAH offers connections to Mexico and Central and South America that DEN does not. I hope the full IAH schedule remains.

According to OAG, RIC-IAH will go to 1.9 in July, so most days will still be twice daily, but not every day. It's not far off, but it just struck me because it was always at least three daily in the past.

vatveng wrote:

If things got real bad at IAD where would those flights go? RIC is going to be in the same boat, and probably ORF/PHF as well. The storm's predicted to cover all of Pennsylvania and most of Ohio and Kentucky too. Could they continue on to CLT or ATL?

RIC won't be bad enough (should mostly be a rain event, maybe a couple of very wet inches on grassy surfaces), so they're always good for a handful of diversions if need be. ORF too, which will definitely be in the clear. PHF, to my knowledge, does not take intl diversions. I've never heard of it, anyway. They'll most likely head down to CLT, maybe even RDU. UA might send flights to ORD too. Either way, I expect there to be pretty limited traffic from DC to BOS tomorrow.

atcsundevil wrote:

iadadd wrote:

graham697 wrote:

Ruh roh.

https://twitter.com/capitalweather/stat ... 5922523138

Well, the morning International arrivals (SA, AI, ET, EK, NH, KE, and UA from GRU) are all still on as scheduled. Hopefully things won't get too bad at IAD because if both DC and NYC are closed then the Northeast is doomed

I am predicting the northeast will be doomed either way. The wind alone will spoil tomorrow for everyone, never mind the snow. In trails and EDCTs for everyone!

ElroyJetson wrote:

I just checked and it looks like UA still has two daily RIC-IAH flights over the summer unless I'm reading it wrong. A morning E145 departure and a late afternoon E145 departure.

IAH offers connections to Mexico and Central and South America that DEN does not. I hope the full IAH schedule remains.

According to OAG, RIC-IAH will go to 1.9 in July, so most days will still be twice daily, but not every day. It's not far off, but it just struck me because it was always at least three daily in the past.

vatveng wrote:

If things got real bad at IAD where would those flights go? RIC is going to be in the same boat, and probably ORF/PHF as well. The storm's predicted to cover all of Pennsylvania and most of Ohio and Kentucky too. Could they continue on to CLT or ATL?

RIC won't be bad enough (should mostly be a rain event, maybe a couple of very wet inches on grassy surfaces), so they're always good for a handful of diversions if need be. ORF too, which will definitely be in the clear. PHF, to my knowledge, does not take intl diversions. I've never heard of it, anyway. They'll most likely head down to CLT, maybe even RDU. UA might send flights to ORD too. Either way, I expect there to be pretty limited traffic from DC to BOS tomorrow.

Thanks for the clarification regarding RIC-IAH. I knew UA was adding a second flight for the summer season but I didn't know it was only six days a week. I remember when CO ran this route with a 735. The E145 seems a little small when you compare AA runs three 738 daily from RIC-DFW, but my guess is UA has its reasons.

As for the diversion question, I think you are correct. ORF and RIC both are designated as international airports and have on site Customs. To my knowledge PHF does not so it could not take IAD international diversions.

Also, probably not an issue, but ORF and RIC both have 9000 ft runways, while PHF main runway is 8000ft.

atcsundevil wrote:

RIC won't be bad enough (should mostly be a rain event, maybe a couple of very wet inches on grassy surfaces), so they're always good for a handful of diversions if need be. ORF too, which will definitely be in the clear. PHF, to my knowledge, does not take intl diversions. I've never heard of it, anyway. They'll most likely head down to CLT, maybe even RDU. UA might send flights to ORD too. Either way, I expect there to be pretty limited traffic from DC to BOS tomorrow.

Richmond's expected to get at least 3". As of 3:30am it's already snowing in downtown but not yet at the airport according to the radar. It'll definitely have an impact, but shouldn't shut down the airport.

The forecast has Norfolk right on the rain/snow/mix line.

Today isn't a fun day for transcons, particularly out of DC. Most flights have been routed over MSY IAH ELP to avoid the weather. IAD-SFO is blocked at 7hr 21min, which incidentally is only 10 minutes less than IAD-FRA today. Since most of the fights are operated by 737s and A320s (apart from the 772 to SFO), some may have to refuel, which is just insult to injury. Even WN flying to DEN had to route via MGM. Most of the later departures are going north over ORD instead, but all of the flights that left around the late afternoon/early evening took the southerly routing. I hope everyone had their tablets charged. Yikes.

Does anyone know what time the aircraft will be arriving sunday for "The Great British Fly-In"?

They've confirmed the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum Lancaster (last of two flyable in the world) as well as 2x spitfires and 3x mustangs (all D models).

I'm assuming they'll be landing 1R/19L weather permitting, it'll be fairly warm.. last thing you want to do is taxi across hell and back at IAD with a Merlin (or four).

MWAA's April Board of Director's meeting documents are up: http://www.mwaa.com/about/april-18-2018 ... e-meetings

Traffic at IAD continues to grow - up 3.6% over the last 12 months, and up 6% year-over-year in February (usually IAD's low spot for the year): http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... eports.pdf

There are a couple of updates on DCA expansion, both from MWAA and the General Contractor, Turner Construction:

http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... ourney.pdf
http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... ourney.pdf

One of the interesting changes they've made is to ease the drop-off crunch at DCA now that the arrivals level is consistently torn up for construction - you can park for up to 60 minutes for free at the main garages. Since the access roads to the parking garages are separate from the arrivals level, they're hoping this might free up some space for pick-ups...

http://www.flyreagan.com/dca/park-free-60-minutes

blockski wrote:

MWAA's April Board of Director's meeting documents are up: http://www.mwaa.com/about/april-18-2018 ... e-meetings

Traffic at IAD continues to grow - up 3.6% over the last 12 months, and up 6% year-over-year in February (usually IAD's low spot for the year): http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... eports.pdf

Good to see IAD keeps growing and as expected, DCA's growth has flatlined.

FlyPNS1 wrote:

blockski wrote:

MWAA's April Board of Director's meeting documents are up: http://www.mwaa.com/about/april-18-2018 ... e-meetings

Traffic at IAD continues to grow - up 3.6% over the last 12 months, and up 6% year-over-year in February (usually IAD's low spot for the year): http://www.mwaa.com/sites/default/files ... eports.pdf

Good to see IAD keeps growing and as expected, DCA's growth has flatlined.

Yep - I think DCA has finally reached a new point of equilibrium after all of the mergers and slot allocation changes.

Perhaps we'll see more changes once this new concourse for AA is completed, as it will allow for use of larger RJs, but I would expect those changes to be marginal in terms of the growth numbers.

Forgive me if OT, but does anyone have thoughts on the best UA club at IAD?

I'm flying on a Saturday but I've got some passes and thought I could at least check it out. It beats getting there too early and just going to the Starbucks in A/B. I'm going Metro to the shuttle from Wiehle, hence why I'm leaving so early.