http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs ... story.html

Southwest is encouraging the state of Maryland to approve a $60M expansion to BWI's Concourse A, which would add 5 new gates and be constructed between January 2019 and July 2020. Immediately following completion, BWI and Southwest will temporarily close the 5 gates on the A/B Connector to revamp the "outdated" baggage handling system.

Yet another expansion for BWI, which has seemingly been under construction for the last 15 years. The expansion to international Concourse E is set to finish up this summer.

While WN already serves most of its domestic destinations nonstop from BWI, WN does have opportunities to add nonstop service to BUR, OMA, ONT, RNO, SNA, SFO, TUS, and TUL from BWI. WN also has opportunities to bring back BWI-GSP and BWI-LIT nonstop service.

Will WN add any new domestic nonstop routes out of BWI? Will WN bring back BWI-GSP and/or BWI-LIT nonstop service?

jplatts wrote:

While WN already serves most of its domestic destinations nonstop from BWI, WN does have opportunities to add nonstop service to BUR, OMA, ONT, RNO, SNA, SFO, TUS, and TUL from BWI. WN also has opportunities to bring back BWI-GSP and BWI-LIT nonstop service.

Will WN add any new domestic nonstop routes out of BWI? Will WN bring back BWI-GSP and/or BWI-LIT nonstop service?

BWI-West Coast has been on a huge upswing in the last few years. With NK pulling out of BWI-OAK in October, that opens the door for BWI-SFO, and I'm positive (based off 6 daily BWI-LAX flights on 4 airlines) there would be sufficient support for BWI-BUR/ONT.

Ugh, really!? More construction and more Southwest. I*'d love to see some other stuff than the 85% WN flights in and out of there.

Can they encourage the TSA to keep pre check open in the evenings? Last 2 times I flew out of there (on Southwest so not talking red-eye) it was closed.

BWI is such a nice airport. I tend to use WN when I travel into the states from SJO just because it's such a hassle free airport, and I can get into the DC area easily.

Blimpie wrote:

Ugh, really!? More construction and more Southwest. I*'d love to see some other stuff than the 85% WN flights in and out of there.

While I would as well, we should be pleased BWI is the east coast hub of America's favorite airline. Plus, with any kind of luck, WN's success here proves to other airlines how viable BWI is, and they start adding service. Worth noting that, before this, the last two BWI projects were the D/E connector and Concourse E expansion, neither of which have anything to do with Southwest.

I liked it better when BWI called their concourses "piers," it paid homage to their beautiful harbor.

727LOVER wrote:

I remember when they first arrived back in 1993. Routes to CLE and I forget the 2nd destination----$19.

USAir was sitting pretty back then with the entire D concourse and around 120 flights in 4 banks.

Southwest started with flights to Cleveland and Chicago.

I remember when they first arrived back in 1993. Routes to CLE and I forget the 2nd destination----$19.

USAir was sitting pretty back then with the entire D concourse and around 120 flights in 4 banks.

The one that stood out to me about BWI, the black concourses. Imagine their electric bill in the summer time?

BWI is one of my favorite airports to use because it has an open feel to it and has many great consumer options. When they do this expansion, I certainly hope if comes with new bathrooms because the ones there now are a bit undersized for the number of gates in use now. I could see the security checkpoint needing to be upgraded as well once it turns into a true 5 gate addition. I also wonder what aircraft access to 3 current gates (A6-A8-A10) on the wall side is going to be like. They are tight now and doubling the length of the distance between the concourse and the driveway wall is going to create some interesting aircraft movement issues. I believe they can only get the -700s in there now. If they eventually retire the 700s in favor of 800s, Max7 and Max8, they may not fit in there anymore. I would hope this has been considered in the design.

LotsaRunway wrote:

BWI is one of my favorite airports to use because it has an open feel to it and has many great consumer options. When they do this expansion, I certainly hope if comes with new bathrooms because the ones there now are a bit undersized for the number of gates in use now. I could see the security checkpoint needing to be upgraded as well once it turns into a true 5 gate addition. I also wonder what aircraft access to 3 current gates (A6-A8-A10) on the wall side is going to be like. They are tight now and doubling the length of the distance between the concourse and the driveway wall is going to create some interesting aircraft movement issues. I believe they can only get the -700s in there now. If they eventually retire the 700s in favor of 800s, Max7 and Max8, they may not fit in there anymore. I would hope this has been considered in the design.

The article mentioned more bathrooms would be added.
I'd imagine they'd just expand Concourse A further west, adding more gates like the ones you mentioned. While I don't believe they can handle -800 or Max 8 aircraft, the 73Gs aren't going anywhere for quite a while, and the Max 7s will be able to fit there, too. There will also be new gates on the other side of the building that will be able to handle those longer aircraft.

I'm interested to see if the construction includes Federal Inspection Service accommodations.

masseybrown wrote:

I'm interested to see if the construction includes Federal Inspection Service accommodations.

I wish. However, based off the price, size, and duration of the construction, I doubt it's anything more than gates at this point.
For what it's worth, I have seen glimpses of designers hinting at expanding Concourse E even further northeast into the cargo/charter apron. That project is probably quite a few years off, though. Southwest should be able to do just fine with all the gates currently available that have FIS.

BWIAirport wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

BWI is one of my favorite airports to use because it has an open feel to it and has many great consumer options. When they do this expansion, I certainly hope if comes with new bathrooms because the ones there now are a bit undersized for the number of gates in use now. I could see the security checkpoint needing to be upgraded as well once it turns into a true 5 gate addition. I also wonder what aircraft access to 3 current gates (A6-A8-A10) on the wall side is going to be like. They are tight now and doubling the length of the distance between the concourse and the driveway wall is going to create some interesting aircraft movement issues. I believe they can only get the -700s in there now. If they eventually retire the 700s in favor of 800s, Max7 and Max8, they may not fit in there anymore. I would hope this has been considered in the design.

The article mentioned more bathrooms would be added.
I'd imagine they'd just expand Concourse A further west, adding more gates like the ones you mentioned. While I don't believe they can handle -800 or Max 8 aircraft, the 73Gs aren't going anywhere for quite a while, and the Max 7s will be able to fit there, too. There will also be new gates on the other side of the building that will be able to handle those longer aircraft.

Thanks! I missed the mention of adding bathrooms.
Regarding Max7's ability to fit the A even # gates, I believe the Max7's will be larger that the 700s, so I don't think their fit is a slam dunk unless they are designed into the plans. From what I recall, they will be two seating rows longer than the 700s. Could they fit them in there? I'm sure they could and I bet they could squeeze a -800 in there as well if they had to, but the area is tight and squeezing wingspan passing a parked aircraft at a gate is challenging with the 700s. WN seems to be doubling down on aircraft smaller than the 800s/Max8s with this gate expansion because nothing else can use half of them.

The article mentions service expansion (which is probably years away). I didn't realize they were gate limited on service with their gates now. It seems half the gates are empty most of the time now and WN seems to dig deeply at BWI during the new winter month schedules. I wonder what they are thinking?

masseybrown wrote:

I'm interested to see if the construction includes Federal Inspection Service accommodations.

Doubtful. There's still room to expand the international terminal by extending the existing concourse, as well as to the northwest parallel to the light rail. Plus the design of the in-progress expansion with four arrival-only gates is custom-made for how WN operates at BWI.

Blimpie wrote:

More construction and more Southwest. I*'d love to see some other stuff than the 85% WN flights in and out of there.

WN has been the catalyst for the near-complete revitalization of BWI. When they moved in back in 1993, BWI was a neglected hub for USAir, due to its proximity to PHL, DCA, and PIT. Putting a hub at BWI was a brilliant idea for Piedmont, but US didn't need it and really couldn't figure out what to do with it. They fought for it with Metrojet (although arguably that was more about just trying to fend off WN's growth on the East Coast after the PSA purchase debacle on the West Coast) and failed miserably.

And I'm not sure what else you could ask for? The legacy carriers fly non-stop to most of their hubs. B6 goes to three airports. NK offers non-stop service to about 20 markets. It's the region's busiest airport, which is pretty remarkable considering it was long the forgotten third airport in the area.

LotsaRunway wrote:

I also wonder what aircraft access to 3 current gates (A6-A8-A10) on the wall side is going to be like. They are tight now and doubling the length of the distance between the concourse and the driveway wall is going to create some interesting aircraft movement issues. I believe they can only get the -700s in there now. If they eventually retire the 700s in favor of 800s, Max7 and Max8, they may not fit in there anymore. I would hope this has been considered in the design.

I'd imagine the long-term plan would be to reconfigure the access roadway somewhat by moving it northwest.

727LOVER wrote:

I remember when they first arrived back in 1993. Routes to CLE and I forget the 2nd destination----$19.

USAir was sitting pretty back then with the entire D concourse and around 120 flights in 4 banks.

Great picture, 727LOVER!! I connected through that concourse in 1986, ROC-BWI-GSO. A spacious, comfortable facility. I remember seeing an Icelandic DC-8 at the old United/ Delta/ People Express Pier B.

Good for BWI, and good for Southwest. Five more gates will no doubt be helpful, in any event. But...how is the baggage system in that still-relatively-new A-B expansion already outdated and in need of serious-enough work that A1-A5 have to be closed to do it?

It's not just that more bathrooms are needed in A-B. Most I've used are physically tight, and I'm an average-sized person. I suspect that bathrooms are kept so small because they don't make money.

Jim

LotsaRunway wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

BWI is one of my favorite airports to use because it has an open feel to it and has many great consumer options. When they do this expansion, I certainly hope if comes with new bathrooms because the ones there now are a bit undersized for the number of gates in use now. I could see the security checkpoint needing to be upgraded as well once it turns into a true 5 gate addition. I also wonder what aircraft access to 3 current gates (A6-A8-A10) on the wall side is going to be like. They are tight now and doubling the length of the distance between the concourse and the driveway wall is going to create some interesting aircraft movement issues. I believe they can only get the -700s in there now. If they eventually retire the 700s in favor of 800s, Max7 and Max8, they may not fit in there anymore. I would hope this has been considered in the design.

The article mentioned more bathrooms would be added.
I'd imagine they'd just expand Concourse A further west, adding more gates like the ones you mentioned. While I don't believe they can handle -800 or Max 8 aircraft, the 73Gs aren't going anywhere for quite a while, and the Max 7s will be able to fit there, too. There will also be new gates on the other side of the building that will be able to handle those longer aircraft.

Thanks! I missed the mention of adding bathrooms.
Regarding Max7's ability to fit the A even # gates, I believe the Max7's will be larger that the 700s, so I don't think their fit is a slam dunk unless they are designed into the plans. From what I recall, they will be two seating rows longer than the 700s. Could they fit them in there? I'm sure they could and I bet they could squeeze a -800 in there as well if they had to, but the area is tight and squeezing wingspan passing a parked aircraft at a gate is challenging with the 700s. WN seems to be doubling down on aircraft smaller than the 800s/Max8s with this gate expansion because nothing else can use half of them.

The article mentions service expansion (which is probably years away). I didn't realize they were gate limited on service with their gates now. It seems half the gates are empty most of the time now and WN seems to dig deeply at BWI during the new winter month schedules. I wonder what they are thinking?

The Max 7 is about 6 feet longer than the 73G which shouldn't make a huge difference for those gates.
Where did you see that BWI is gate limited?

ScottB wrote:

WN has been the catalyst for the near-complete revitalization of BWI. When they moved in back in 1993, BWI was a neglected hub for USAir, due to its proximity to PHL, DCA, and PIT. Putting a hub at BWI was a brilliant idea for Piedmont, but US didn't need it and really couldn't figure out what to do with it. They fought for it with Metrojet (although arguably that was more about just trying to fend off WN's growth on the East Coast after the PSA purchase debacle on the West Coast) and failed miserably.
I'd imagine the long-term plan would be to reconfigure the access roadway somewhat by moving it northwest.

What amazes me is how WN continues to go from strength to strength at BWI despite their costs and fares being much closer to the legacies than they were 15 years ago. I only use BWI less than half the time now, because fares on routes I fly are often competitive at closer DCA. I suspect WN's product and two-free-bags have a lot to do with their continued strength at BWI.

I've long wondered about that alley between Friendship Road and A. If the ground lot behind the Hourly Garage were moved, the entrance to the garage could be moved there. Friendship Road could then probably be moved 100 feet to the east until it has to come back and meet the terminal building. That would at least allow additional inner-side gates, beyond about the first three existing gates, to accommodate -800's and -MAX8's.

Also, Google satellite shows plenty of room for the proposed A extension without impacting the hardstand area to the northwest. I didn't realize how long that space is.

Jim

BWIAirport wrote:

Where did you see that BWI is gate limited?

I didn't, which is why I said that I didn't know that it was gate limited and that gates seem to be open quite often. But the article seems to imply that by adding the gates then WN could expand, which says to me that they feel they are (or will soon be) gate limited and couldn't expand without the gate expansion. I think they could expand quite a bit with existing gates, but maybe they have tremendous growth planned a few years down the road or maybe they just want to bring the use of the C gates under the wing of A and B gates. A massive international growth push probably would make sense with this gate expansion so we are simply talking domestic and maybe Canadian.

BC77008 wrote:

I liked it better when BWI called their concourses "piers," it paid homage to their beautiful harbor.

I mean, the Inner Harbor is a great tourist trap and a less hectic/pricey alternative to DC. But beautiful? To each their own I guess. At least you didn't try to compare it to Sydney like another poster on here did. That's just false advertising.

BWI has done an incredible job of being the domestic alternative to DCA. Truly amazing when you consider how underused IAD is.

BWIAirport wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

The article mentioned more bathrooms would be added.
I'd imagine they'd just expand Concourse A further west, adding more gates like the ones you mentioned. While I don't believe they can handle -800 or Max 8 aircraft, the 73Gs aren't going anywhere for quite a while, and the Max 7s will be able to fit there, too. There will also be new gates on the other side of the building that will be able to handle those longer aircraft.

Thanks! I missed the mention of adding bathrooms.
Regarding Max7's ability to fit the A even # gates, I believe the Max7's will be larger that the 700s, so I don't think their fit is a slam dunk unless they are designed into the plans. From what I recall, they will be two seating rows longer than the 700s. Could they fit them in there? I'm sure they could and I bet they could squeeze a -800 in there as well if they had to, but the area is tight and squeezing wingspan passing a parked aircraft at a gate is challenging with the 700s. WN seems to be doubling down on aircraft smaller than the 800s/Max8s with this gate expansion because nothing else can use half of them.

The article mentions service expansion (which is probably years away). I didn't realize they were gate limited on service with their gates now. It seems half the gates are empty most of the time now and WN seems to dig deeply at BWI during the new winter month schedules. I wonder what they are thinking?

The Max 7 is about 6 feet longer than the 73G which shouldn't make a huge difference for those gates.
Where did you see that BWI is gate limited?

I just took at look at Google Maps and it shows -700s sitting at A8 and A10. After taking measurements between the tails of those planes and the wall, I don't think I'd want to be working the tug pushing a Max7 (or even a -700) past a 6-foot longer aircraft parked at either A8 or A10. I do agree that moving Friendship Road would open that up, but I think that could be quite expensive rebuilding the relatively new bridge ramps accessing the front of the terminal.

izbtmnhd wrote:

BWI has done an incredible job of being the domestic alternative to DCA. Truly amazing when you consider how underused IAD is.

From what I can tell, that's the key point--domestic. In the 90's, BWI was a much better choice than IAD for WN to set up a mid-Atlantic hub. Its location between the two population centers is a much better location for WN's domestic customers. In the 90's, of course, WN's costs were still significantly lower than the legacies, and they weren't considering international flights. With a (then-) profit philosophy of stimulating significant new domestic traffic with much lower fares, choosing the airport that is between the wealthier DC "DMV" area and the less-prosperous, but still populous (well over 2 million) Baltimore area, made sense. And it paid off handsomely.

Re international, good for BWI, finally seeing international volume more like what Maryland has wanted for so long. Due to WN absorbing AirTran and bringing their marketing power to international flights, the Gov. William Donald "I am not weird" Schaefer International terminal bustles. Originally, though, the hopes were for transoceanic flights. I remember renderings when that terminal was built, showing hoped-for transoceanic jumbos.

IAD's domestic growth will probably be slow and organic, growing only as NOVA growth past the airport continues. DC and closer-in VA and MD people tried IAD for domestic during the Independence Air years, and the initial years of WN / FL / B6 being there. They went back to DCA, helped by the AA / US slot divestiture that opened up DCA slots for B6 and WN. The Silver Line, which will have nearly 20 stops between downtown and IAD when it is done, will benefit the Toll Road / Tysons Corridor areas much more than IAD. IAD is simply too far away, a pain to get to, and convoluted to use.

I wish IAD weren't frigging "Washington Mirabel," or I would go to spot sometimes, given the fantastic variety of international heavies there nowadays.

Jim

LotsaRunway wrote:

BWI is one of my favorite airports to use because it has an open feel to it and has many great consumer options.

Just wanted to say, I used BWI for the first time about 2 years ago, i've been kicking myself since for going through the other DC area airports, what a great airport it is.

planecane wrote:

Can they encourage the TSA to keep pre check open in the evenings? Last 2 times I flew out of there (on Southwest so not talking red-eye) it was closed.

Agreed, though I am noticing that the TSA has started closing up shop on the pre lanes earlier and earlier at all airports, I went through LAX T1 a couple of days ago and the Pre lane closed at 9pm.

At SMF they had it down at 6pm the day before, I guess they run the numbers, but both places were busy from my point of view.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Balti ... 76.6683922

Are the old USAirways gates being used on concourse D?

Are those Dulles like boarding buses I see at the end of concourse D?

william wrote:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baltimore%2FWashington+International+Thurgood+Marshall+Airport/@39.18046,-76.670621,935m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b7e2fcbbc2e00b:0x150cfa971740!8m2!3d39.1774042!4d-76.6683922

Are the old USAirways gates being used on concourse D?

Are those Dulles like boarding buses I see at the end of concourse D?

The old US Airways gates are now utilized by Delta and Alaska. American now solely operates out of Concourse C.

Those are Dulles-like buses, but I have never seen them used.

Southwest's market share has slowly dropped as spirit and other airlines have grown. It was down to 67% last month i believe

LotsaRunway wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

Where did you see that BWI is gate limited?

I didn't, which is why I said that I didn't know that it was gate limited and that gates seem to be open quite often. But the article seems to imply that by adding the gates then WN could expand, which says to me that they feel they are (or will soon be) gate limited and couldn't expand without the gate expansion. I think they could expand quite a bit with existing gates, but maybe they have tremendous growth planned a few years down the road or maybe they just want to bring the use of the C gates under the wing of A and B gates. A massive international growth push probably would make sense with this gate expansion so we are simply talking domestic and maybe Canadian.

Southwest is not at capacity at BWI. If they waited until they were at capacity to add gates, that would be pretty terrible planning. They currently occupy a few gates on the end of Concourse C, and I believe the rest are strictly AA gates.

BWIAirport wrote:

With NK pulling out of BWI-OAK in October, that opens the door for BWI-SFO, and I'm positive (based off 6 daily BWI-LAX flights on 4 airlines) there would be sufficient support for BWI-BUR/ONT.

I don't know if NK's single flight per day presence on BWI-OAK matters so much, as it likely targeted pax who wouldn't have flown (made the cross country trip) otherwise. It might be seasonal and restored also. WN on BWI-SFO would have to attract business passengers, and some away from UA and AS. I think the advantage really is WN's market share on the BWI side, while UA will diminish. If one wants to use BWI and UA to go anywhere in the east coast, with the BWI-EWR cut, a connection in ORD will be needed and that's out of the way for majority of cities. Over time, there might be a decrease in UA FFs near BWI relative to WN, DL and AA. WN's disadvantage is even though WN it has a large hub on the BWI side, it's not really ideal for someone originating in SFO. to go to most markets e.g. say one is flying SFO to TPA. A flight connection through BWI is less ideal than through another market (like PHX, DAL, STL or MDW).. There are a limited number of markets in the northeast, however. e.g. SFO-BWI-PWM where it would open up a one stop. It is also limited on potential number of departures it can handle on the SFO end.

DCA-ROCguy wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

BWI has done an incredible job of being the domestic alternative to DCA. Truly amazing when you consider how underused IAD is.

Re international, good for BWI, finally seeing international volume more like what Maryland has wanted for so long. Due to WN absorbing AirTran and bringing their marketing power to international flights, the Gov. William Donald "I am not weird" Schaefer International terminal bustles. Originally, though, the hopes were for transoceanic flights. I remember renderings when that terminal was built, showing hoped-for transoceanic jumbos.

Jim

Ha, you are right. The idea behind Pier E was to be an TATL alternative to Dulles. I doubt that will ever happen now. Even low-cost TATL carriers like FI prefer operating at IAD over BWI. It's down to BA/WW. They did try though. Ghana Air and Air Greenland were my favorites in those pre-WN international days. The terminal did get a bit busy when World Air had military charters.

Now the International terminal's bustle is directly tied to WN and the Caribbean. Who would have thought it 20 years ago?

izbtmnhd wrote:

Ha, you are right. The idea behind Pier E was to be an TATL alternative to Dulles. I doubt that will ever happen now. Even low-cost TATL carriers like FI prefer operating at IAD over BWI. It's down to BA/WW. They did try though. Ghana Air and Air Greenland were my favorites in those pre-WN international days. The terminal did get a bit busy when World Air had military charters.

Now the International terminal's bustle is directly tied to WN and the Caribbean. Who would have thought it 20 years ago?

Actually FI is back at BWI. Condor is there as well, and WW appears to be 11x weekly. Scheduled trans-Atlantic from BWI has never been busier.

flyPIT wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

Ha, you are right. The idea behind Pier E was to be an TATL alternative to Dulles. I doubt that will ever happen now. Even low-cost TATL carriers like FI prefer operating at IAD over BWI. It's down to BA/WW. They did try though. Ghana Air and Air Greenland were my favorites in those pre-WN international days. The terminal did get a bit busy when World Air had military charters.

Now the International terminal's bustle is directly tied to WN and the Caribbean. Who would have thought it 20 years ago?

Actually FI is back at BWI. Condor is there as well, and WW appears to be 11x weekly. Scheduled trans-Atlantic from BWI has never been busier.

In an EI thread a few months back, someone said BWI is a given for Aer Lingus A321neoLRs to return as well.

Isnt condor looking at going year round too?

BWIAirport wrote:

Those are Dulles-like buses, but I have never seen them used.

The only time I've seen them used recently was in 2016 when an AS 737's front wheel got stuck in a pothole. See link with picture:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/BWI-to-SEA-Plane-Stuck-in-Pothole-384373651.html

flyPIT wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

Ha, you are right. The idea behind Pier E was to be an TATL alternative to Dulles. I doubt that will ever happen now. Even low-cost TATL carriers like FI prefer operating at IAD over BWI. It's down to BA/WW. They did try though. Ghana Air and Air Greenland were my favorites in those pre-WN international days. The terminal did get a bit busy when World Air had military charters.

Now the International terminal's bustle is directly tied to WN and the Caribbean. Who would have thought it 20 years ago?

Actually FI is back at BWI. Condor is there as well, and WW appears to be 11x weekly. Scheduled trans-Atlantic from BWI has never been busier.

I didn't know FI was back and I forgot about Condor. FI ops at IAD is still quite a bit larger. WW is 11x weekly in the summer only. I believe it goes back to 1x daily in the winter.

Even still the only TATL widebodies are the summer-only 3/4x weekly Condor and the subsidized daily BA.

The original idea in the 1990s was to draw a heavyweight TATL carrier or two from IAD or at least be part of a regional TATL expansion which didn't involve Iceland. Proposals showed all sorts of widebodies departing from E which never materialized. Looks like most of the expansion happened at IAD.

izbtmnhd wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

Ha, you are right. The idea behind Pier E was to be an TATL alternative to Dulles. I doubt that will ever happen now. Even low-cost TATL carriers like FI prefer operating at IAD over BWI. It's down to BA/WW. They did try though. Ghana Air and Air Greenland were my favorites in those pre-WN international days. The terminal did get a bit busy when World Air had military charters.

Now the International terminal's bustle is directly tied to WN and the Caribbean. Who would have thought it 20 years ago?

Actually FI is back at BWI. Condor is there as well, and WW appears to be 11x weekly. Scheduled trans-Atlantic from BWI has never been busier.

I didn't know FI was back and I forgot about Condor. FI ops at IAD is still quite a bit larger. WW is 11x weekly in the summer only. I believe it goes back to 1x daily in the winter.

Even still the only TATL widebodies are the summer-only 3/4x weekly Condor and the subsidized daily BA.

The original idea in the 1990s was to draw a heavyweight TATL carrier or two from IAD or at least be part of a regional TATL expansion which didn't involve Iceland. Proposals showed all sorts of widebodies departing from E which never materialized. Looks like most of the expansion happened at IAD.

That being said, DE, WW, FI, and BA have all seen consistently improved service over the past few years. Wow was supposed to be seasonal, went year round, and now has 11x weekly in the summer. Condor started at 3x weekly and I believe it is now 5x weekly. British Airways, since replacing the 763 with the 788, sees good loads and even sends a 789 once or twice a week. Icelandair has expanded the BWI service into January, with a 737-8 Max operating in the winter. Even Air Canada has added Montreal since last year.
I think it is conservative to say that, within two years, there will be a Latin carrier (Volaris, Caribbean, Interjet, etc), another European carrier (Air France, Norwegian, Aer Lingus, etc), and will be close to landing an Asian carrier (Hainan, JAL, Asiana, etc). I also wouldn't be surprised to see DL start BWI-CDG/AMS.

BWIAirport wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

BWI is one of my favorite airports to use because it has an open feel to it and has many great consumer options. When they do this expansion, I certainly hope if comes with new bathrooms because the ones there now are a bit undersized for the number of gates in use now. I could see the security checkpoint needing to be upgraded as well once it turns into a true 5 gate addition. I also wonder what aircraft access to 3 current gates (A6-A8-A10) on the wall side is going to be like. They are tight now and doubling the length of the distance between the concourse and the driveway wall is going to create some interesting aircraft movement issues. I believe they can only get the -700s in there now. If they eventually retire the 700s in favor of 800s, Max7 and Max8, they may not fit in there anymore. I would hope this has been considered in the design.

The article mentioned more bathrooms would be added.
I'd imagine they'd just expand Concourse A further west, adding more gates like the ones you mentioned. While I don't believe they can handle -800 or Max 8 aircraft, the 73Gs aren't going anywhere for quite a while, and the Max 7s will be able to fit there, too. There will also be new gates on the other side of the building that will be able to handle those longer aircraft.

Actually, the wall (even) side (at least A-6 for sure on Google Maps) is marked for both the -700 and -800 size aircraft. It's the other side that has the length issue and is only marked for -700 size aircraft. That's due to proximity of the taxiway on the odd side of the terminal.

I wonder if BWI's landing fees and operational costs are significantly lower tha DCA and IAD? I suspect this is a factor in WN's expansion and competitive advantage there.

BWIAirport wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Actually FI is back at BWI. Condor is there as well, and WW appears to be 11x weekly. Scheduled trans-Atlantic from BWI has never been busier.

I didn't know FI was back and I forgot about Condor. FI ops at IAD is still quite a bit larger. WW is 11x weekly in the summer only. I believe it goes back to 1x daily in the winter.

Even still the only TATL widebodies are the summer-only 3/4x weekly Condor and the subsidized daily BA.

The original idea in the 1990s was to draw a heavyweight TATL carrier or two from IAD or at least be part of a regional TATL expansion which didn't involve Iceland. Proposals showed all sorts of widebodies departing from E which never materialized. Looks like most of the expansion happened at IAD.

That being said, DE, WW, FI, and BA have all seen consistently improved service over the past few years. Wow was supposed to be seasonal, went year round, and now has 11x weekly in the summer. Condor started at 3x weekly and I believe it is now 5x weekly. British Airways, since replacing the 763 with the 788, sees good loads and even sends a 789 once or twice a week. Icelandair has expanded the BWI service into January, with a 737-8 Max operating in the winter. Even Air Canada has added Montreal since last year.
I think it is conservative to say that, within two years, there will be a Latin carrier (Volaris, Caribbean, Interjet, etc), another European carrier (Air France, Norwegian, Aer Lingus, etc), and will be close to landing an Asian carrier (Hainan, JAL, Asiana, etc). I also wouldn't be surprised to see DL start BWI-CDG/AMS.

I really don't see AF or any of the Asian carriers coming to BWI. Maybe Hainan but I have serious doubts.

DL to Europe? Who knows? Depends on how much Maryland is willing to fork out for a flight.

If EI is coming back, it's a narrowbody for sure.

Latin LCC narrowbodies..sure.

Condor peaks at 4x/weekly in July and August now. Short total season. Roughly just before US Memorial Day to just after US Labor Day.

http://info.flightmapper.net/flight/Con ... st_DE_2075

zuckie13 wrote:

BWIAirport wrote:

LotsaRunway wrote:

BWI is one of my favorite airports to use because it has an open feel to it and has many great consumer options. When they do this expansion, I certainly hope if comes with new bathrooms because the ones there now are a bit undersized for the number of gates in use now. I could see the security checkpoint needing to be upgraded as well once it turns into a true 5 gate addition. I also wonder what aircraft access to 3 current gates (A6-A8-A10) on the wall side is going to be like. They are tight now and doubling the length of the distance between the concourse and the driveway wall is going to create some interesting aircraft movement issues. I believe they can only get the -700s in there now. If they eventually retire the 700s in favor of 800s, Max7 and Max8, they may not fit in there anymore. I would hope this has been considered in the design.

The article mentioned more bathrooms would be added.
I'd imagine they'd just expand Concourse A further west, adding more gates like the ones you mentioned. While I don't believe they can handle -800 or Max 8 aircraft, the 73Gs aren't going anywhere for quite a while, and the Max 7s will be able to fit there, too. There will also be new gates on the other side of the building that will be able to handle those longer aircraft.

Actually, the wall (even) side (at least A-6 for sure on Google Maps) is marked for both the -700 and -800 size aircraft. It's the other side that has the length issue and is only marked for -700 size aircraft. That's due to proximity of the taxiway on the odd side of the terminal.

I may stand corrected, but I think I recall that A6 was marked for a -800 and then blacked out, and A8 and A10 were marked only for the -700. Maybe someone local can confirm one way or the other. I always figured that parking -800s at A8 or A10 would demand too much of the alley for another -800 to pass. Gate A6 doesn't need to worry about the alley since it's at the end. So like I said up-thread, I think WN could get an -800 in there if they really tried, but I have never seen one parked there and I really don't think they want to unless there is no place else to go. New gates A12 and A14 would have the same alley issue as A8 and A10. As for the odd side, I think they are marked only for -700s, but I also think they could angle those if they wanted to in order to reline for -800s. WN has a lot of -800s and Max8 on the way, so they better find more parking for them. It just doesn't appear to me that this expansion is going to help with that much unless they plan to rework some of the B gates to get more -800 parking. After adding to the A gates and they need to close A1-5 for baggage, WN will temporarily lose 5 more -800 parking spots.

BWIAirport wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Actually FI is back at BWI. Condor is there as well, and WW appears to be 11x weekly. Scheduled trans-Atlantic from BWI has never been busier.

I didn't know FI was back and I forgot about Condor. FI ops at IAD is still quite a bit larger. WW is 11x weekly in the summer only. I believe it goes back to 1x daily in the winter.

Even still the only TATL widebodies are the summer-only 3/4x weekly Condor and the subsidized daily BA.

The original idea in the 1990s was to draw a heavyweight TATL carrier or two from IAD or at least be part of a regional TATL expansion which didn't involve Iceland. Proposals showed all sorts of widebodies departing from E which never materialized. Looks like most of the expansion happened at IAD.

That being said, DE, WW, FI, and BA have all seen consistently improved service over the past few years. Wow was supposed to be seasonal, went year round, and now has 11x weekly in the summer. Condor started at 3x weekly and I believe it is now 5x weekly. British Airways, since replacing the 763 with the 788, sees good loads and even sends a 789 once or twice a week. Icelandair has expanded the BWI service into January, with a 737-8 Max operating in the winter. Even Air Canada has added Montreal since last year.
I think it is conservative to say that, within two years, there will be a Latin carrier (Volaris, Caribbean, Interjet, etc), another European carrier (Air France, Norwegian, Aer Lingus, etc), and will be close to landing an Asian carrier (Hainan, JAL, Asiana, etc). I also wouldn't be surprised to see DL start BWI-CDG/AMS.

The common thread for all of the TATL operators is the low cost model. Ability to serve BWI with narrowbodies is a plus.

BA is the one exception, and that's thanks to their direct subsidy on the route from the State of Maryland. The replacement of the 763 with the 788 isn't exactly an endorsement of the route's yields, either - it's due to BA retiring their 767s.

Maryland pays a pretty penny to keep BA at BWI: https://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/n ... ar-to.html

BWI's growth with WN is impressive, but given WN's strategy of not codesharing, this kind of transatlantic network is always going to be a weak spot for them.

izbtmnhd wrote:

Ha, you are right. The idea behind Pier E was to be an TATL alternative to Dulles. I doubt that will ever happen now. Even low-cost TATL carriers like FI prefer operating at IAD over BWI. It's down to BA/WW. They did try though. Ghana Air and Air Greenland were my favorites in those pre-WN international days. The terminal did get a bit busy when World Air had military charters.
Now the International terminal's bustle is directly tied to WN and the Caribbean. Who would have thought it 20 years ago?

During the early years of the Iraq War, when AirTran was located in D and I could easily watch E on my BWI-ROC and other FL runs, I even saw ATA L-1011's. I called BWI "Jurassic Park" during those years, because you could still see pax L-1011's. I used to enjoy seeing Ghana Airways, and once saw an Afriquiyah A330 that I think was a sub. Atlas Air pax 744's and Omni Air 772's added some bigger heavy metal to the military mix.

I have a an Irish friend who used to use the Aer Lingus flights to DUB, and I enjoyed seeing A333's when I'd drop him off or pick him up. I remember the Baltimore Sun calling Aer Lingus "BWI's busiest international carrier" in those days. I don't think EI had the same kind of subsidy BA did. So BWI had two transatlantic legacy carriers during the middle of the last decade.

Also, the occasional BA 772 in the summer were fun to see. Do those still come in on sub these days?

I'm not surprised BA demanded a slightly bigger subsidy deal in 2016 when they went to 788's with more business seats. Asking for an all-or-nothing deal was unreasonable, however, and I'm surprised Maryland agreed to it instead of a higher prorated cap. I wonder how BA is actually doing on the route. ULCC's with narrowbodies aren't the only ones who have been growing on transatlantic these days. Given the strength of legacy transatlantic growth in the last couple of years--places like AUS and BNA getting BA, for instance--I suspect BWI is actually filling front and back cabins at good fares on that flight. But I suppose we won't know nowadays.

Jim

blockski wrote:

BWI's growth with WN is impressive, but given WN's strategy of not codesharing, this kind of transatlantic network is always going to be a weak spot for them.

Will WN fly narrowbody planes with extra range that would allow for nonstop transatlantic flights between BWI and Europe? WN would also be able to add nonstop service to Hawaii from DEN if it had planes capable of nonstop transatlantic flights in its fleet.

As far as I recall, Maryland had to pay nothing for the BA flight in 2015. I imagine the target might have moved somewhat since then, but the flight seems to have improved in performance considerably since the 787 started being used. Cargo loads were up over 140% during the first 12 months since the change of gauge.

From the Balitmore BizJournals Article:

The airport's CEO says the deal keeps the airline at BWI, where it's a key carrier that has struggled at times to book seats.

But the agreement is necessary to keep British Airways flying into BWI, said airport CEO Ricky Smith Sr. The Heathrow-to-BWI route is one of the airlines' poorest-performing U.S. routes, he said, arguing that it's also key to BWI's future.

Also the subsidy amount available was increased for 2016-2018.

izbtmnhd wrote:

From the Balitmore BizJournals Article:

The airport's CEO says the deal keeps the airline at BWI, where it's a key carrier that has struggled at times to book seats.

But the agreement is necessary to keep British Airways flying into BWI, said airport CEO Ricky Smith Sr. The Heathrow-to-BWI route is one of the airlines' poorest-performing U.S. routes, he said, arguing that it's also key to BWI's future.

Also the subsidy amount available was increased for 2016-2018.

It's not a subsidy. It's a revenue guarantee that kicks in if particular figures aren't met. In terms of performance, BA probably could find better places to put its aircraft rather than BWI, particularly as many Marylanders already go to Dulles to board BA's other flights there. So the guarantee is probably needed to convince the carrier to stay. However, I wouldn't pay too much attention to the way Ricky Smith characterizes things...

That article you quote also says that MD did not have to pay anything for the BA flight in 2015. The article was published in January 2016, eight months before the first 787 flights to BWI.

In the 2000s, the agreement was for an operating margin guarantee of 8%. There were years then when MD had to pay very little of the guarantee, or none at all. The performance suffered as a result of the financial crisis. When Smith says the airline at times struggles to book seats (assuming that he knows what he's talking about, which I doubt), he could be talking about that time period, which was before he took office, or during the month of February, which tends to be difficult from US cities in general. But these days the load factors are pretty good, and the actual passenger numbers are the highest they have ever been.

BWI is my home airport. That said, it's the worst baggage system in the USA.

BWIAirport wrote:

Plus, with any kind of luck, WN's success here proves to other airlines how viable BWI is, and they start adding service.

It doesn't necessarily work that way. Other carriers are looking for routes, not aggregated WN demand. WN's presence on a relatively thin route can crowd out other prospective carriers. WN's 3x MDW-MHT just killed UA's ORD-MHT service, for example.

SFOThinker wrote:

I wonder if BWI's landing fees and operational costs are significantly lower tha DCA and IAD? I suspect this is a factor in WN's expansion and competitive advantage there.

Yeah, I think that is for sure a factor in WN and NK’s success at BWI. Frontier has tried to start up many new routes out of IAD but have either had to decrease frequency or cut routes like they did in the 2014-2016 timeframe.

Cost Per Enplanement 2017
DCA: $13.44
BWI: $9.34
iAD: $17.00

This article discusses IAD’s falling costs and includes past cost per enplaned passenger.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ll-448659/

BWI’s past cost per enplaned passenger numbers. (Page 8)
http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/pubs/budgetf ... ration.pdf

I find it amazing how has BWI’s CPE has remained so constant in the past. With all this the construction happening around BWI, I don’t know the the CPE would not go up. IAD’s CPE went up when the Aerotrain system was installed.