New International Concourse in CLT
- Thread starter InternationalShannon
- Start date
LD3
Veteran
The deck is going to be replaced with a single larger one, as for being done on the cheap, that is CLT's way of doing business.....
Okay, I am not happy. First of all, if they get rid of the hourly deck, where the F am I supposed to park when I get to work late and don't have time to ride the bus to clock in and then go park in employee lot. BOO FOR THAT. :down:
Secondly, I doubt that this would be cheaply done, they have spent a lot of money making CLT one of the most beautiful airports to fly through (the newer parts )
Thirdly, it's raining all hurricane style outside and I don't appreciate that. I don't know that relates, but i felt it necessary to disclose.
you talking about the black hook shaped pavement?
That is the expanded area, when completed it will have 47 gates that can handle 737's. Last time I went up to Development the last plans had the connector still in place.
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Mar 23, 2004
- 906
- 254
Yup, that black hook is where the next expansion will go. Where you see the little white in the blue roofs, is basically the part they just added. As others have said, Mast plans get changed, it's basically a 10 yr plan and get adjusted as needed.
Though I think it would help a bunch back there if they could do 2 lane taxi, as it's a cluster F*88 trying to taxi back there, and as they expand it, it will just get worse. have sat in the corner there stuck for an hour at times.
Though I think it would help a bunch back there if they could do 2 lane taxi, as it's a cluster F*88 trying to taxi back there, and as they expand it, it will just get worse. have sat in the corner there stuck for an hour at times.
LD3
Veteran
I would imagine that in the next 20 years the City must think hard about another airport if the growing trend continues. The footprint of the airport is really small being stuck between 18R & 18L.
I agree. They should make the construction going on now suitable for international narrowbody, at least, with a few more heavy spots. That might solve the demand needs for the near future.
Do we really expect these tiny jets are going to be viable forever? Too big is flexible, too small is a waste.
Do we really expect these tiny jets are going to be viable forever? Too big is flexible, too small is a waste.
gabby
Senior
- Jul 24, 2006
- 306
- 48
Those jets are viable today as much as yesterday.
The last 3 four day trips i have tallied up the fuel burn and estimated the cost...at $4/gallon. (I know they pay a lot less but i need a place to start).
If i divided the burn/lbs by 6.7 i get the amount of gallons used.
Then multiply that by the $4 and you get the cost of fuel for the flight.
Now divide that by the amount of pax and you get what it costs each passenger.
The average for the past trips has been $77.
If you fill the airplane each time it costs about $35/pax per hour of flight. (50 seat crj)
Now i have no idea what people are paying for tickets. But on a 50 seat jet all the crew labor is: $2.34
That includes Captain/FO/FA. Each person has to pay $2.34 for labor. Now i guess we have to double that for
ramp personel, management, HR etc... Maybe tripple or more.
Bottom line is that these jets are cheap for what they do.
Taking business people at the time they want to go to the places they want to be.
Now it is managements job to charge a rate that makes it all worth while.
Crzipilot
Veteran
- Mar 23, 2004
- 906
- 254
boy, if that's your rationalization as to why an RJ is economical....... naaaa not even worth it
Actually it is worth it. time and time again, management has made small sound bites/ slip ups on the rj factor. But it's been repeated enough times..... True there is a segment that this thing is worth flying. But again that little sound bite keeps coming back time and time again. Two different CEO's same answer. The RJ was a tool to break a contract and the unions. This tool has done it's job, and now they don't want as many of them any more. Look at the compression of the pay scales. On a long thin route, the rj is fine, the dash even better. but you see those piedmont guys get paid higher then the jet drivers. Oh well.....
Actually it is worth it. time and time again, management has made small sound bites/ slip ups on the rj factor. But it's been repeated enough times..... True there is a segment that this thing is worth flying. But again that little sound bite keeps coming back time and time again. Two different CEO's same answer. The RJ was a tool to break a contract and the unions. This tool has done it's job, and now they don't want as many of them any more. Look at the compression of the pay scales. On a long thin route, the rj is fine, the dash even better. but you see those piedmont guys get paid higher then the jet drivers. Oh well.....
Factor in the fuel burn and the Dash is much more economical despite the well above average seniority.
gabby
Senior
- Jul 24, 2006
- 306
- 48
I think you are missing the point.
First one was how insignificant the labor rate is on the RJ's.
The airplanes were designed for business travel. People who would pay a premium to get Jet Service
from smaller airports. Management found a loop hole and exploited the RJ idea. Cheaper Labor.
I too believe the Dash is a more efficient airplane. But our customers were getting Jet Service with
Delta and other companies had to follow. (Back when fuel was cheap).
Yes the RJ's cause congestion problems. But is that the airplanes fault?
Use them for what they were designed for and they will profit.
I don't see that happening even though I would favor it. Too much O&D traffic out of the DC area to support an international hub.
Wonder if CLT would be an ideal hub if we merged with United and closed IAD down and shifted all INTL to CLT...that would solve anti-trust issues with PHL/IAD and it's only a 450 nautical mile difference from IAD to CLT...I'd support this if CLT actually built whats in the Masterplan
gabby
Senior
- Jul 24, 2006
- 306
- 48
Naaa not even worth it? What is that? Doesn't even make sense. I showed you a very valid example of how efficient the CRJ's are. Yes a dash gets better fuel economy. But do they hold 50 people? How about 70? Sure the Q400's do but US Air doesn't have them.
As for the piedmont guys getting paid more....Well they should, they work harder, no fms, fly more legs and get stuck flying in all sorts of weather. Good for them. The RJ wasn't designed to break the unions. We had management and Duanne W. for that. It was Delta that gave the small jets to regionals and so in order to be competitive US Air had to follow. Really simple.
Today i had the fuel down to an average of $44/pax per trip. Even if fuel doubles and companies follow American's $60 fuel surcharge it will more than make up for the price of gas. If the bean counters can't see this simple math then they need to quit this job and run for congress.
Piedmont has a dozen or so -300s that seat 50. They could use a lot more of them but that isn't going to happen.
Travelpro72
Veteran
- Jan 30, 2005
- 4,964
- 455
Thank you. I was about to put the snore meter on HIGH....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ All the expansion is great but they better do something with the B and C concourses. On any given day there are more people than that terminal seems to be able to handle. It's narrow and people are everywhere. Maybe the worst of the Usairways hubs in that respect. You can't walk to the left or the right or even in the middle sometimes. Just PACKED. Just don't let someone yell fire or you'd get trampled to death. Sometimes it's like running with the bulls. 
phasersonstun2
Veteran
- May 1, 2003
- 560
- 4
PIT and USAir (original mgt) blew it in so many ways.
PIT could have still been a viable hub, but a p***ing contest with the city of PIT, along with a poor design (Colodnyvision) involving designing a new terminal with taxiways TOO CLOSE TOGETHER FOR WIDEBODIES sealed its' fate from ever becoming an international gateway.
Similar threads
