https://www.dallasnews.com/business/dfw ... n-terminal

24 Gates set to open around 2025.

Terminal C will also get some renovations.

Wonder what those C upgrades are going to be like.

Long live the Horse Shoe. Glad to see AA embrace DFW and the vision laid out all those decades ago.

F is going to be 3 times (maybe only twice considering inflation) more expensive than D. I guess it will be fitted out as nice as D.

WOW!

AA will top 1000 departures a day soon at DFW!

When I read the DFW airport press release it read to me as though the design/layout was still tbd.

dfdubflyer wrote:

When I read the DFW airport press release it read to me as though the design/layout was still tbd.

Agreed. I'm not convinced that C will remain a half circle as well.

I wonder how much AA has or will participate in getting gates at terminal F. Will they get all of the terminal and vacate other terminals? E?

khinstorff wrote:

dfdubflyer wrote:

When I read the DFW airport press release it read to me as though the design/layout was still tbd.

Agreed. I'm not convinced that C will remain a half circle as well.

$500M is not going to change the shape of C. They said up to 24 gates which is about what you'd expected with a horseshoe. If it had fingers (ala new IST) it would have many more gates than 24.

And a Renovation of C, which is the current single biggest need.

khinstorff wrote:

Agreed. I'm not convinced that C will remain a half circle as well.

It might look like D.

khinstorff wrote:

dfdubflyer wrote:

When I read the DFW airport press release it read to me as though the design/layout was still tbd.

Agreed. I'm not convinced that C will remain a half circle as well.

The D style or Box like?

I suspect the C renovations will be half measures at best. They don't want to touch any of the asbestos stuff that remains in place there, so ceilings/major work won't happen, just floors and some cosmetic things. Ultimately, it will have to go in the next 10-20 years to a new/rebuild.

It will be fun to watch the construction of Terminal F from the SkyLink, as it zooms through the ever-changing construction site!

At the very least, DFW will be able to say that all gates are connected post-security, and that SkyLink can connect every gate within a 30-minute walk/tram.

Has AA ever said which design they prefer? The half-circle or the half-square?

Is there a official DFW discussion tread I can read to catch up on whats going on in dfw? I can't find it on the search engine?

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

It will be fun to watch the construction of Terminal F from the SkyLink, as it zooms through the ever-changing construction site!

At the very least, DFW will be able to say that all gates are connected post-security, and that SkyLink can connect every gate within a 30-minute walk/tram.

Has AA ever said which design they prefer? The half-circle or the half-square?

Id hope Square at least from the passenger perspective. Operational wise I have no guess. More stores and restaurants from the square would help with the extra costs?

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

It will be fun to watch the construction of Terminal F from the SkyLink, as it zooms through the ever-changing construction site!

At the very least, DFW will be able to say that all gates are connected post-security, and that SkyLink can connect every gate within a 30-minute walk/tram.

Has AA ever said which design they prefer? The half-circle or the half-square?

Neither are great for connecting. I assume the D requires less walking for the pax at the extremes (and less movement below). Obvious DFW was not even remotely considering a drastic overhaul (like one giant terminal) for say the next 50-100 years. They could still in the future with this configuration add some more stringers and connectors for even more gates in the future if required.

My guess, F will look a lot like D.

UpNAWAy wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

It will be fun to watch the construction of Terminal F from the SkyLink, as it zooms through the ever-changing construction site!

At the very least, DFW will be able to say that all gates are connected post-security, and that SkyLink can connect every gate within a 30-minute walk/tram.

Has AA ever said which design they prefer? The half-circle or the half-square?

Neither are great for connecting. I assume the D requires less walking for the pax at the extremes (and less movement below). Obvious DFW was not even remotely considering a drastic overhaul (like one giant terminal) for say the next 50-100 years. They could still in the future with this configuration add some more stringers and connectors for even more gates in the future if required.

DFW is wonderful for connecting. You can be at any other gate within 15 minutes or so and it's a BIG airport. Last week, I checked into A, hopped on the Tram and went over to Terminal D. Less than 10 minutes from going through security in Terminal A to getting down the escalator in Terminal D.

The traffic growth rate (and projections for population) makes me think DFW really could be the next/first-north-American LHR, where buses, sadly, shuttle folks to/from terminal staging areas. I say that not due to this project, but because this is really the end of significant organic terminal growth here. Lot's of space to park planes out and about though, especially if AA ever (2 decades on) moves more maintenance stuff to some place like Alliance.

$3.5 billion is quite a number. Terminal D, Skylink and the ABE renovations ended up costing around $2.7 billion, so not way out of line, but noticeably more expensive.

Design is not set in stone, but pretty clear with that amount that F won't horseshoe, will be a box or a new design. Only 24 gates suggests another D, with room for AA's ongoing effort to replace the former MD80 spam with B7878 spam.

The C refurb is interesting. $500 isn't much more than was spent for the ABE, but they absolutely have to address the former 3E section 3, which is still all "temporary" construction. May consider building 3Es3 out as a new design, and renovating the rest, kind of like the Terminal B N/S connector project at Logan.

This leaves a lot of room for international flying, with BDF all getting some in the next 6 years. Not sure if they are pretty much done with domestic expansion and are now looking for purely international markets. It would be a shame, because there's several domestic routes DFW still hasn't gotten around to serving yet (the major destinations not served by AA out of DFW include ADS, AFW, DAL, RBD and TKI).

Pretty obvious that AA intends to make people flying from SYD-PER connect at DFW.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

UpNAWAy wrote:

PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:

It will be fun to watch the construction of Terminal F from the SkyLink, as it zooms through the ever-changing construction site!

At the very least, DFW will be able to say that all gates are connected post-security, and that SkyLink can connect every gate within a 30-minute walk/tram.

Has AA ever said which design they prefer? The half-circle or the half-square?

Neither are great for connecting. I assume the D requires less walking for the pax at the extremes (and less movement below). Obvious DFW was not even remotely considering a drastic overhaul (like one giant terminal) for say the next 50-100 years. They could still in the future with this configuration add some more stringers and connectors for even more gates in the future if required.

DFW is wonderful for connecting. You can be at any other gate within 15 minutes or so and it's a BIG airport. Last week, I checked into A, hopped on the Tram and went over to Terminal D. Less than 10 minutes from going through security in Terminal A to getting down the escalator in Terminal D.

Agreed. DFW is the best hub airport in the world for connecting, IMO - quick and easy between gates.

O&D pax get the shaft though. If you check bags and parked, you're stuck schlepping your bags to a bus to get back to your car.

Antarius wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

UpNAWAy wrote:

Neither are great for connecting. I assume the D requires less walking for the pax at the extremes (and less movement below). Obvious DFW was not even remotely considering a drastic overhaul (like one giant terminal) for say the next 50-100 years. They could still in the future with this configuration add some more stringers and connectors for even more gates in the future if required.

DFW is wonderful for connecting. You can be at any other gate within 15 minutes or so and it's a BIG airport. Last week, I checked into A, hopped on the Tram and went over to Terminal D. Less than 10 minutes from going through security in Terminal A to getting down the escalator in Terminal D.

Agreed. DFW is the best hub airport in the world for connecting, IMO - quick and easy between gates.

O&D pax get the shaft though. If you check bags and parked, you're stuck schlepping your bags to a bus to get back to your car.

I agree on your last comment. This is exactly why I checked in (parked in Terminal A). I was studying prior flights and based on this, my arriving flight coming back home would be in Terminal A. Since I was getting around 11:00 pm, I'd rather arrive and just walk out the door. This isn't 100% full-proof, but you can get a pretty good idea of which terminal you'll be arriving back to and I always try to park there. It's great that you can check-in at any terminal.

YouGeeElWhy wrote:

khinstorff wrote:

dfdubflyer wrote:

When I read the DFW airport press release it read to me as though the design/layout was still tbd.

Agreed. I'm not convinced that C will remain a half circle as well.

$500M is not going to change the shape of C. They said up to 24 gates which is about what you'd expected with a horseshoe. If it had fingers (ala new IST) it would have many more gates than 24.

I do think it’s possible that there isn’t a plan that’s set in stone for C. With F being done first, it gives them time to figure out a long-term solution for C, which very well could include total demolition, turning C into a head house for A & E, flattening the semi circle, etc. It just seems very premature to say all they will do is a small facelift like replacing the floors and reconfiguring security. Also, the 24 gates is a reference to F’s capacity, not C’s.

texl1649 wrote:

I suspect the C renovations will be half measures at best. They don't want to touch any of the asbestos stuff that remains in place there, so ceilings/major work won't happen, just floors and some cosmetic things. Ultimately, it will have to go in the next 10-20 years to a new/rebuild.

The reason they haven't updated C after they did A and E is that the Asbestos abatement was going to cost more than demolishing the terminal and build a new one.

freakyrat wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I suspect the C renovations will be half measures at best. They don't want to touch any of the asbestos stuff that remains in place there, so ceilings/major work won't happen, just floors and some cosmetic things. Ultimately, it will have to go in the next 10-20 years to a new/rebuild.

The reason they haven't updated C after they did A and E is that the Asbestos abatement was going to cost more than demolishing the terminal and build a new one.

What do you think the strategic plan here is? Renovate C (Done 2020?), build F (Done 2025), Demolish C (2026?), build new C (2030?).

Now if they would just bring back the 2E, 2W, 3E, 3W, 4E and the new 4W designations I do miss those for some odd reason.

I've always thought it made more sense to build a new, cheaper, terminal for airlines other an AA on the east side of the airport (either to the east of 35R or between the runways. These airlines do not need to be involved or in the middle of all the infrastructure that the hub needs or be in a terminal designed for connections. Then give AA terminal E.

Then again, no one asked me.

Hopefully it has an observation deck

freakyrat wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I suspect the C renovations will be half measures at best. They don't want to touch any of the asbestos stuff that remains in place there, so ceilings/major work won't happen, just floors and some cosmetic things. Ultimately, it will have to go in the next 10-20 years to a new/rebuild.

The reason they haven't updated C after they did A and E is that the Asbestos abatement was going to cost more than demolishing the terminal and build a new one.

Why was C different than A,B or E?

stburke wrote:

What do you think the strategic plan here is? Renovate C (Done 2020?), build F (Done 2025), Demolish C (2026?), build new C (2030?).

The new F will allow the renovation/rebuild of C. F first, everything else comes after.

Why not eventually move all international flights from Terminal D over to the new terminal F. Have a dedicated AA/(One World) International terminal

Antarius wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

I suspect the C renovations will be half measures at best. They don't want to touch any of the asbestos stuff that remains in place there, so ceilings/major work won't happen, just floors and some cosmetic things. Ultimately, it will have to go in the next 10-20 years to a new/rebuild.

The reason they haven't updated C after they did A and E is that the Asbestos abatement was going to cost more than demolishing the terminal and build a new one.

Why was C different than A,B or E?

If memory serves me right, 3E aka "C" had a unique design. It was originally designed without seating areas at each gate. There were large holding areas/departure lounges (two I believe) with big departure boards. These boards would alert passengers that their flight was ready for board. The terminal was later retrofitted and redesigned to have seating areas at each gate. I wonder if the extra asbestos not present in the other terminals came from this renovation and the construction of the temporary structure that makes up the southern 1/3 of of the terminal?

Antarius wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

UpNAWAy wrote:

Neither are great for connecting. I assume the D requires less walking for the pax at the extremes (and less movement below). Obvious DFW was not even remotely considering a drastic overhaul (like one giant terminal) for say the next 50-100 years. They could still in the future with this configuration add some more stringers and connectors for even more gates in the future if required.

DFW is wonderful for connecting. You can be at any other gate within 15 minutes or so and it's a BIG airport. Last week, I checked into A, hopped on the Tram and went over to Terminal D. Less than 10 minutes from going through security in Terminal A to getting down the escalator in Terminal D.

Agreed. DFW is the best hub airport in the world for connecting, IMO - quick and easy between gates.

You guys need to do a gate count between comparison between DFW and ATL, and then time someone between distant gates ATL/DFW and median distance gates ATL/DFW. Not even close. SkyTrain is multi-Billion$ lipstick on flawed geometry. DEN was a clean sheet: it looks a lot more like ATL than it does DFW.

legend500 wrote:

$3.5 billion is quite a number. Terminal D, Skylink and the ABE renovations ended up costing around $2.7 billion, so not way out of line, but noticeably more expensive.

Design is not set in stone, but pretty clear with that amount that F won't horseshoe, will be a box or a new design. Only 24 gates suggests another D, with room for AA's ongoing effort to replace the former MD80 spam with B7878 spam.

The C refurb is interesting. $500 isn't much more than was spent for the ABE, but they absolutely have to address the former 3E section 3, which is still all "temporary" construction. May consider building 3Es3 out as a new design, and renovating the rest, kind of like the Terminal B N/S connector project at Logan.

This leaves a lot of room for international flying, with BDF all getting some in the next 6 years. Not sure if they are pretty much done with domestic expansion and are now looking for purely international markets. It would be a shame, because there's several domestic routes DFW still hasn't gotten around to serving yet (the major destinations not served by AA out of DFW include ADS, AFW, DAL, RBD and TKI).

Pretty obvious that AA intends to make people flying from SYD-PER connect at DFW.

If one did not notice the dip in the floor, the majority of pax do not know they are entering the "temporary" then 3E addition.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

DFW is wonderful for connecting. You can be at any other gate within 15 minutes or so and it's a BIG airport. Last week, I checked into A, hopped on the Tram and went over to Terminal D. Less than 10 minutes from going through security in Terminal A to getting down the escalator in Terminal D.

Agreed. DFW is the best hub airport in the world for connecting, IMO - quick and easy between gates.

You guys need to do a gate count between comparison between DFW and ATL, and then time someone between distant gates ATL/DFW and median distance gates ATL/DFW. Not even close. SkyTrain is multi-Billion$ lipstick on flawed geometry. DEN was a clean sheet: it looks a lot more like ATL than it does DFW.

There are a lot of benefits from an operating standpoint for a linear structure. There is a reason LAX midfield concourse, LHR T5 etc. Followed the model of ATL and DEN. No disagreement there.

That said, DFW is still a dream to connect in from a pax perspective. Distance between gates is irrelevant - the time and effort expended is. Skylink turned a disaster into a breeze. Flawed geometry or not.

AMALH747430 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

The reason they haven't updated C after they did A and E is that the Asbestos abatement was going to cost more than demolishing the terminal and build a new one.

Why was C different than A,B or E?

If memory serves me right, 3E aka "C" had a unique design. It was originally designed without seating areas at each gate. There were large holding areas/departure lounges (two I believe) with big departure boards. These boards would alert passengers that their flight was ready for board. The terminal was later retrofitted and redesigned to have seating areas at each gate. I wonder if the extra asbestos not present in the other terminals came from this renovation and the construction of the temporary structure that makes up the southern 1/3 of of the terminal?

Good points. Interesting.

Will need to Google what those looked like.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

DFW is wonderful for connecting. You can be at any other gate within 15 minutes or so and it's a BIG airport. Last week, I checked into A, hopped on the Tram and went over to Terminal D. Less than 10 minutes from going through security in Terminal A to getting down the escalator in Terminal D.

It's not just wonderful, it's a dream. I'd personally love to come back just to connect there at least.

Yes as has been documented C was originally built with the concept being an old fashioned 'train station' design vs. a linear concept, with just a central holding area for pax. At some point it's just gotta be torn down.

texl1649 wrote:

Yes as has been documented C was originally built with the concept being an old fashioned 'train station' design vs. a linear concept, with just a central holding area for pax. At some point it's just gotta be torn down.

Kind of what they do at Heathrow. They use a Central Holding Area at 3 and 5 and have a big board which displays when the gate areas for your flight are open and what gate to go to.

DFW is awesome. So easy to connect there.

freakyrat wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Yes as has been documented C was originally built with the concept being an old fashioned 'train station' design vs. a linear concept, with just a central holding area for pax. At some point it's just gotta be torn down.

Kind of what they do at Heathrow. They use a Central Holding Area at 3 and 5 and have a big board which displays when the gate areas for your flight are open and what gate to go to.

I'm struggling to imagine it, since unlike LHR or others, terminal C isn't that big. It is quite narrow (and even if it had more space pre-TSA, it isn't that wide). Very interesting.

Can anyone share pictures or links that show this? Thanks in advance.

Antarius wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

Yes as has been documented C was originally built with the concept being an old fashioned 'train station' design vs. a linear concept, with just a central holding area for pax. At some point it's just gotta be torn down.

Kind of what they do at Heathrow. They use a Central Holding Area at 3 and 5 and have a big board which displays when the gate areas for your flight are open and what gate to go to.

I'm struggling to imagine it, since unlike LHR or others, terminal C isn't that big. It is quite narrow (and even if it had more space pre-TSA, it isn't that wide). Very interesting.

Can anyone share pictures or links that show this? Thanks in advance.

This is how it worked back in the day. You also need to remember people were smaller in the 70s.

Questions

1. Is Terminal C going to torn down and rebuilt or simply gutted and remodeled?

2. What design they will use for Terminal F? You'd think they could fit a few more than 24 gates, unless that's all AA wants right now.

3. Where will further expansion (i.e, Terminal G) go?

Antarius wrote:

O&D pax get the shaft though. If you check bags and parked, you're stuck schlepping your bags to a bus to get back to your car.

Eh, just do what I used to do: don't exit security where you arrive, take the Skylink back to the terminal where you parked, drive back over to your arrival terminal, park in short term (no charge because you're still inside the airport), and chances are your bag will just then be arriving at the carousel.

Eventually, with the cost increases for parking, I just started taking Uber from Keller and it was cheaper and no multiple terminal hassle on either end.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

dennypayne wrote:

Antarius wrote:

O&D pax get the shaft though. If you check bags and parked, you're stuck schlepping your bags to a bus to get back to your car.

Eh, just do what I used to do: don't exit security where you arrive, take the Skylink back to the terminal where you parked, drive back over to your arrival terminal, park in short term (no charge because you're still inside the airport), and chances are your bag will just then be arriving at the carousel.

Eventually, with the cost increases for parking, I just started taking Uber from Keller and it was cheaper and no multiple terminal hassle on either end.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Exactly what I used to do when I used to check a bag.

These asbestos rumors in Terminal C have persisted on this site, but is there any documentation of this?
The timing just doesn't make sense. If all of the original terminals had asbestos, that would make sense, but any renovations to 3E after the original opening to make individual gate areas would have been after builders stopped using asbestos. The "temporary" extension was in the 80's long after asbestos was flat-out banned.

Isn't the more plausible scenario that they simply went way over budget with TRIP and had to scrap C?

Skylink is great. Though they need to double the size of the train sets and the station stop doors. As it is, sometimes the trains are packed.

Fargo wrote:

3. Where will further expansion (i.e, Terminal G) go?

Terminal G would probably go where the South Employee Parking Lot is currently located (south of Terminal E on the other side of the taxiway bridges), and Terminal H would probably go where DFW Design, Code, & Construction offices are currently located (south of Terminal F on the other side of the taxiway bridges).

YouGeeElWhy wrote:

Antarius wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

Kind of what they do at Heathrow. They use a Central Holding Area at 3 and 5 and have a big board which displays when the gate areas for your flight are open and what gate to go to.

I'm struggling to imagine it, since unlike LHR or others, terminal C isn't that big. It is quite narrow (and even if it had more space pre-TSA, it isn't that wide). Very interesting.

Can anyone share pictures or links that show this? Thanks in advance.

This is how it worked back in the day. You also need to remember people were smaller in the 70s.

I don't think the size of humans is the issue. Remember DFW was designed in the 60s when security was much more lax. The whole idea they had was from your car to your gate in 100 feet, or something along those lines.

EvanWSFO wrote:

YouGeeElWhy wrote:

Antarius wrote:

I'm struggling to imagine it, since unlike LHR or others, terminal C isn't that big. It is quite narrow (and even if it had more space pre-TSA, it isn't that wide). Very interesting.

Can anyone share pictures or links that show this? Thanks in advance.

This is how it worked back in the day. You also need to remember people were smaller in the 70s.

I don't think the size of humans is the issue. Remember DFW was designed in the 60s when security was much more lax. The whole idea they had was from your car to your gate in 100 feet, or something along those lines.

With reserve-ahead ride service like ExecuCar, the 100 foot walk is amazing. Think about it, there are 165+ gates, and most of those gates are that close to your waiting ride. DFW isn’t just great for transiting passengers, but locals too that use ExecuCar, for example.