PDA

View Full Version : Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ThrashATL
Apr 14, 2006, 3:07 PM
Numerous news sources are reporting a deal has been struck between the pilots and the airline. No details out yet, though.

Whew! My miles are safe for a bit longer!

And so is Atlanta. A Delta shutdown would have been a disaster for the city.

Seriously, what choices do the pilots have?

Let's see... get out a straight razor, slit my throat and bleed to death or stick it out best they can and try to make it work for their sake, even if not for the airline's sake. Even if they leave Delta and go work somewhere else, they're probably only going to make what Delta is offering to them anyway as Delta pilots are some if not the highest paid pilots in the industry. Sure, go ahead and quit and go work some cattle car for AirTran or Southwest at half your current pay.

atlantaguy
Apr 14, 2006, 3:55 PM
Actually, Southwest pilots are among the best paid in the industry, believe it or not. Actually, that goes for their entire workforce.

Sulley
Apr 14, 2006, 3:56 PM
Yup, and they have the highest employee morale in the entire industry as well. Just goes to show if you treat employees well, they'll perform.

Harry Cane
Apr 14, 2006, 4:55 PM
SW might be better paid, but they'd be at the bottom of the seniority list, which is BIG with airline crews.

In my mind I figured common sense would prevail and both management and the union would realize this was "murder-suicide", but let's face it, it's happened before. Remember Eastern? Things there got so rancorous they cut off their noses to spite their faces.

atlantaguy
Apr 14, 2006, 5:14 PM
Oh yeah Harry, I know they would have been at the bottom of the seniority list - IF Southwest would have even been interested in them at all. I was actually responding to Thrash's remark about making half their pay at WN or AirTran.

For some reason, there seems to be a misperception with the general public re: pay scales at Southwest. They really do take good care of their people, and a big part of their compensation is in the form of Company stock. Although I've only flown them once from Phoenix to San Diego (on the Shamu plane, no less) I have been a big fan of theirs for years.

On another note, I am so glad things seem to be working out with Delta and the pilots. I wasn't really prepared for Atlanta to be thrust into a depression - which is exactly what would have happened!

ThrashATL
Apr 14, 2006, 7:00 PM
Actually, Southwest pilots are among the best paid in the industry, believe it or not. Actually, that goes for their entire workforce.

They're well paid but not nearly as well as Delta is (or was)...

Q: How much do pilots make?

A: Delta says average pilot pay last year was $157,000. The union puts the figure at $151,000. That includes the effects of an earlier concessions deal in 2004 that cut wages 32.5 percent. Prior to that cut, Delta pilots had been the industry's best-paid since 2001.

STrek777
Apr 21, 2006, 9:16 PM
On a side note has anyone heard anything about the new International Terminal for Hartsfield-Jackson, when they will demolish the old ATC Tower, and/or if they are proceding with plans for a news South Terminal? The Hartsfield-Jackson website is horrible to try and navigate and I can't find any information on these projects other than to find the word (proposed) next to the topic. I realize that they put just about everything on hold to see what would become of Delta. However, much to the dismay and propoganda of the AJC, Delta is on track to pull through so where are the construction / demolition announcements.

ATLonthebrain
Apr 22, 2006, 2:56 AM
Here's a link to tons of info about what's happening at ATL: http://www.atlanta-airport.com/Default.asp?url=sublevels/airport_info/gmpage.htm. Click on Airport Construction...

ATL's biggest project for the next 3 years will be the construction (FINALLY) of the new 8,700-space Consolidated Rental Car Facility. That's a major undertaking, and one that's been in the planning process for a few years. Groundbreaking was held earlier this month. It's getting built just south of the new Georgia International Convention Center off Camp Creek Pkwy. Take the Virtual Tour!

The South Terminal will not happen prior to 2010, especially with the cumbersome process of planning, design, and construction. Also, it's likely that Delta would have to give its consent to this project, because of the bonds that would be sold to underwrite construction of the terminal. Its business generates the majority of airline revenues. I'm sure the airline will have a say in how this facility is developed, and what it allows for in terms of added capacity (and more importantly to Delta, opening the door to increased competition!). If Delta isn't happy, it will be difficult to push forward. If Delta gets ample room to grow as a result of the new gates, that will make it more likely to get the green light.

Expect the International Terminal to come online around 2010. I believe the lawsuit between the design firm and the City is still being argued. If, in fact, the entire facility is to be redesigned, as indicated by the Ben DeCosta, it will be a couple of years before any construction begins. I actually think this legal battle gave the Airport what it needed to cool the jets on forward momentum with this $1 Billion project. The future of Delta was seriously being questioned, and still is, so it was justified for there to be extreme caution. It will happen, just not as soon as many had hoped. The current International Concourse E has recently added another 2-3 gates to increase its capacity to the furthest extent possible without the new East Terminal. In other words, it is now built out. You can take a Virtual Tour by going through that link above.

The 9,000 ft. 5th parallel runway and new 397 ft. Air Traffic Control Tower represent over $1.4 Billion worth of projects now being completed. Also, there's a pretty cool page with lots of info on the new runway, due to open to air traffic on May 27. Again, the link above is the first step to reaching the 5th Runway page. Check it out.

I'm planning to be in ATL on May 27 for the opening of the 5th runway. Still have some contacts from my days of working there, and hope to get out on the airfield to watch some of the first operations. Maybe can get into the new Tower also, which would be incredible. To see the airfield from 400ft up!!! WOW...

Passenger traffic is down for the first couple of months @ ATL. Probably has to do with DL's seat capacity reduction combined with some travelers avoiding the carrier due to the bankruptcy reorganization. AirTran is inching towards 20% market share, which they might actually realize in 2006. Amazing how they have grown there, and continue to expand.

ATLonthebrain

austin356
Apr 22, 2006, 5:14 AM
What is going to happen to the union contracts Delta has with maintance workers??? I thought I heard on cnbc that they were going to layoff all maintance workers and outsource work to a non-union private servicer because that would cut cost for maintance by 33%. Is this true?

mayhem
Apr 22, 2006, 7:15 AM
:) Glad to see the 5th runway coming to completion.

NativeAtlantan
Apr 22, 2006, 3:58 PM
from the website linked by ATLonthebrain:
"The 1,200 foot long bridge is designed to handle a load of 1.327 million pounds; the weight of a full Airbus A380. The earth embankment brings the bridge 70 feet above the freeway at its highest point."

My question is - does this sound like they engineered the load bearing capacity of the bridge to match the weight of the heaviest plane, when full? Sounds like they're limited in using that runway if bigger planes come along in the future.

I know that the wave of the future is mid-sized planes, but you'd think that they would over-engineer the load-bearing capacity the same way they over-engineered the number of lanes the bridge would span just to allow for growth of planes in the future, especially with the increased international travel that ATL will accomodate, which generally employ the larger planes. I am assuming that the other four runways have much higher load bearing capacities than the fifth and can reroute bigger planes to those, but it just seems silly that they built the 5th to only handle today's heaviest.

NativeAtlantan
Apr 22, 2006, 4:07 PM
Does anyone know what the plan is for the old tower? Has it already been demolished or will it be used in addition to the new 400 ft. tower?

STrek777
Apr 22, 2006, 6:25 PM
As I understand it the plan is to demolish it. However, the design of the new international terminal seems to be up in the air for now so who knows.

The original 4 runways of ATL were designed to handle the maximum weight of the 747-400 and they have been extended to handle the possible 747-800 but if the A-380 were to land, it is my understanding, that it would bust the concrete. The old 4 are not reinforced or thick enough to handle the impact of a fully loaded A-380. I really don't think that a larger plane will ever be built using today’s technology no matter how safe they think it is just remember they also touted the safety of the Titanic. Airbus has had many more accidents related to faulty aircraft components than Boeing ever has and I personally will never fly on the A-380.

Randy Sandford
May 2, 2006, 7:03 PM
BTW, trvlr70 and Justin, I flew American from ATL to LGA on my recent New York trip a couple of weeks ago. I definitely felt like cattle. First of all, self-service check-in was the only option for coach class domestic passengers at both ATL and LGA. This is SO impersonal and didn't speed things up any (unless you weren't checking any bags, and with weather ranging from sunny 70's to rainy 40's during our 5 days in NYC, there was no way we could avoid checking a couple of bags) because I had to wait about 10 minutes for one of the few agents available to finally notice that the baggage tags had printed out and that we needed assistance (he was standing at the adjacent counter the entire time and saw us standing there waiting to check in our bags). The flight attendants were not very attentative or personable on the flight to LGA, and fortunately (ironic, eh?), the return flight to ATL was cancelled (bad weather in the northeast the morning we departed), and American booked us on a Delta flight back to ATL.

Considering what the two of you said about Delta and seeing how bad things had gotten at American, my expectations were very low. Contrary to your reports, the return flight on Delta couldn't have been nicer. First of all, Delta gave the option of self check-in or dealing with a live agent to ALL passengers at the ticket counter which was a relief to those of us who had been rebooked on Delta after the American flight was cancelled. And unlike American at both ATL and LGA, we didn't have to carry our checked-in bags over to the security screening area after checking in. Most of all, the flight attendants were friendly and attentive (and beverages and snacks were served)--just as they've been on all of the Delta flights I've taken over the years.

So, Southwest and JetBlue may be better than Delta, and Delta's customer service may have suffered during the first months of bankruptcy, but things apparently have improved as of now. And they're certainly doing a better job than American at the present time.

IHateBirds
May 2, 2006, 10:58 PM
Referencing an earlier part of the conversation--As far as really BIG airports go, Atlanta really isn't too bad. O'Hare on the other hand is a sprawling mess and pretty nasty too. I've never been to DFW, but I hear it is even worse.

While Atlanta might be acceptable as a large airport, I generally do not enjoy my time there. It is not particularly clean and the waiting is sometimes ridiculous. In time I believe the waiting will be improved, but I'd really like to see the aesthetics and sanitation improved quite a bit.

I really hate air travel anyway, and airports like Hartsfield and OHare do nothing to relieve my tension.

ATLonthebrain
May 3, 2006, 8:00 PM
IHateBirds,

Here is a link to a story you and others might find interesting, in response to your comments about the lack of cleanliness @ ATL: http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2006/02/27/story1.html

I think many underestimate or oversimplify the task of keeping such a massive and heavily used facility clean. There are, however, measures that can be taken to improve, which is what this article addresses. I'd like to think there is a level of seriousness in elevating the airport's public perception, otherwise Ben DeCosta would not have received such extensive coverage.

As a facility ages, it becomes more difficult to keep it in top operating condition, and I'm seeing that firsthand here at Detroit Metro Airport (albeit 20yrs older than ATL's facilities). Some of our terminal facilities are in bad need of improvement, but that won't be happening, other than a few simple and inexpensive cosmetic patches. A new terminal is now underway to replace the two old buildings and associated concourses.

Hopefully "Operation Clean Sweep" will be a success. A success would be that passengers notice a difference, a real measurable improvement, in their travels in/out/through ATL. I'm looking forward to returning there for Memorial Day Weekend, which is when the 5th runway opens. I'll be on the lookout for noticeable improvements throughout the Midfield Terminal Complex. And from my days working for the Department of Aviation there, I still have many contacts who can tell me what's new and on the horizon. I'll be sure to ask specifically about the efforts to clean up their act, so to speak. And I'll report back, if this thread is still generating interest.

Also, I'll be flying Delta, so we'll see how that goes. My last trip on the airline was back in Oct on a newly refurbished MD88 between ATL-ORD. The check-in was quick, gate clearance (flew standby) was timely and efficient, and the flight attendants were attentive and in good spirits while completing the cabin service in-flight. And to top it all off, the flight arrived early!

I know this is but one of the thousands of flights Delta and its affiliates operated that day, but it is an example of what can happen when things go right from start-to-finish, airport-to-airport.

ATLonthebrain

TALLTOWER
May 3, 2006, 10:11 PM
atl is to crowded and delta dominated i prefer dfw alot more

Plasticman
May 4, 2006, 2:01 AM
Have to disagree with this, Atlanta is the best LARGE airport in the United States. Ever been to Dallas, Chicago in the winter time?
Atlanta for it's size is well done. Once you get used to it, it is very easy to hop the train to the correct concourse grab a bite to eat and wait for the flight. Most problems are user error, but if able to go to Memphis or Charlotte
is perferred just because it's easier.
Exactly my thoughts. I've flown out of Ohare and it is a dump compared to Atlanta's. Atlanta is far more modern, more user friendly, and a heck of a lot faster to get around in.

IHateBirds
May 4, 2006, 2:43 AM
IHateBirds,

Here is a link to a story you and others might find interesting, in response to your comments about the lack of cleanliness @ ATL: http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2006/02/27/story1.html


Wow that's really promising. I hope it makes a difference. It is no doubt a very tough job to keep such a facility clean. I suppose it is much like a very large shopping mall, and the staff in a place like that is enormous.

Randy Sandford
May 4, 2006, 7:06 AM
atl is to crowded and delta dominated i prefer dfw alot more

Of course, DFW isn't dominated by a single airline, is it?

:jester:

ATLonthebrain
May 4, 2006, 2:16 PM
Looks like the new 398' tower @ ATL is due to become operational next week. It'll be staffed just a couple of weeks ahead of the commissioning of the 5th runway. Wish they had made it 2' taller..just to see the number 400ft. for a control tower. Wow! 2nd tallest tower in the world after Bangkok, which is about 434ft.

DFW is the airport I have traveled through more than any other on the planet, aside from Palm Springs International, where I lived for over 9yrs. I've been flying through the airport for about 5yrs now, and I can attest that the airport has made huge strides in improving the terminal facilities occupied by AA - A, B, & C, along with the brand-new massive Terminal D. The concessions are very good, ever-expanding in concepts and new outlets. And the new Skylink train system is awesome, offering excellent views of the ramp operations and airfield from above. There are about 8-10 new Starbuck's there, created along with the construction of the train system's stations. So for anybody who can't live without their Starbuck's, they've got you covered @ DFW!

But DFW is far less busy than ATL, by about 30M passengers and 300K operations in 2005, especially after the closing of DL's hub there. I have heard that Terminal E, where DL's hub was located, needs a lot of attention in modernization. Perhaps it will get it now, with the airport being so interested in attracting another airline to establish a large presence to replace DL.

Chachi
May 6, 2006, 2:23 AM
I'll be one of the 1500 people on the new 5th runway (10-28) on Saturday, May 20th at 7:30am for the incredibly long 5K run. I'm bringing my little Canon SD200 camera to take some pics of the runway where it traverses I-285. If they're interesting I'll post them.:)

ThrashATL
May 10, 2006, 2:31 AM
The new 398' tower is in use as of last Saturday.... tallest in the U.S.

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/01/18/56/image_3656181.jpg

Chachi
May 28, 2006, 2:16 AM
Very nice photo!

I'm happy to say that runway 10-28 had its first commercial landing today around 6am. An inbound Delta flight from Tel Aviv, Israel.

theelectricsm
May 28, 2006, 3:31 AM
Very nice photo!

I'm happy to say that runway 10-28 had its first commercial landing today around 6am. An inbound Delta flight from Tel Aviv, Israel.

I was waiting for my flight this morning, and I had time to kill, so I headed to Concourse E. I went to the south end and immediately saw the South African Airways flight from Johannesburg/Cape Verde landing on the new runway. I saw a Song plane and at least half a dozen Delta MD-88s and AirTran 717s land one right after the other. After that flurry of activity, I saw nothing land on 10-28 for the remaining time that I stood there. It was getting close to the time I needed to head to my flight, but I kept saying to myself, "I'll leave after I see one more plane land," but I had to give up on that plan after 10-15 minutes.

zodiac
May 29, 2006, 4:01 AM
D@mn the new runway in ATL ...planes will have to taxi a great distant to get to the main part of the airport for passengars..

theelectricsm
May 29, 2006, 2:19 PM
D@mn the new runway in ATL ...planes will have to taxi a great distant to get to the main part of the airport for passengars..

It's really not that far. The FAA is saying it will take 15 minutes, but it hasn't been taking that long thus far. Besides, if it eliminates holding patterns and other delays in the air, then it will be doing its job. Furthermore, many airports have very long taxiing distances because they don't have the luxury of the compact, efficient layout that ATL has.

ATLssMania
May 29, 2006, 6:40 PM
It's really not that far. The FAA is saying it will take 15 minutes, but it hasn't been taking that long thus far. Besides, if it eliminates holding patterns and other delays in the air, then it will be doing its job. Furthermore, many airports have very long taxiing distances because they don't have the luxury of the compact, efficient layout that ATL has.

Yes, 15 minutes of taxiing is not bad at all. I once flew into Amerstdam's Schipol airport and we taxied for about a half hour...seemed longer than the flight from London!

Chachi
May 29, 2006, 8:00 PM
D@mn the new runway in ATL ...planes will have to taxi a great distant to get to the main part of the airport for passengars..

I read that the proper authorities are tossing around the idea of having flights that land on 9R/27L perform Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO) where a pilot not use the full length of the runway but, rather, that (s)he stop and hold short before reaching an intersecting runway, taxiway, or other specified point on the landing runway. This would allow recently landed plane on 10-28 to not have to taxi all the way to the end of 9R/27L, but rather cut across the runway and then cut across 9L/27R (take off runway) when it's cleared.

This would save taxi time to the terminal. LAHSO are never required, as far as I understand, and are at the discretion of the landing pilot. Many pilots are not big fans of LAHSO due to safety concerns.

zodiac
May 30, 2006, 2:06 AM
Thanks for the information everyone, I must say its still very impressive.

theelectricsm
May 30, 2006, 2:27 AM
I read that the proper authorities are tossing around the idea of having flights that land on 9R/27L perform Land and Hold Short Operations (LAHSO) where a pilot not use the full length of the runway but, rather, that (s)he stop and hold short before reaching an intersecting runway, taxiway, or other specified point on the landing runway. This would allow recently landed plane on 10-28 to not have to taxi all the way to the end of 9R/27L, but rather cut across the runway and then cut across 9L/27R (take off runway) when it's cleared.

This would save taxi time to the terminal. LAHSO are never required, as far as I understand, and are at the discretion of the landing pilot. Many pilots are not big fans of LAHSO due to safety concerns.

My observation on Saturday is that planes were crossing 9R/27L and then 9L/27R at their midpoints because that's where the taxiway from 10/28 is. The planes just wait for the runway to clear like all landing planes at Hartsfield have to do, which doesn't take very long. They just have to cross both a landing and takeoff runway. I don't understand why land and hold short has even been discussed. I'm mainly curious as to whether takeoffs are going to get to benefit from the new runway. Perhaps there will be times when 10/28 has relieved so much of the landing backlog that 8L/26R or 9R/27L can accommodate some takeoffs at peak times. I was recently 18th in line to takeoff on a Saturday morning, so it would be nice not to have those kinds of waits to takeoff.

Fiorenza
May 30, 2006, 3:35 AM
According to AJC

Air traffic controllers say the runway, which will increase the airport's capacity by 40 percent, will be used mostly for landings at first.

I take that to mean it will eventually be handling takeoffs as well, especially during times when there are more takeoffs than landings.

Chachi
Jun 1, 2006, 3:21 AM
According to AJC



I take that to mean it will eventually be handling takeoffs as well, especially during times when there are more takeoffs than landings.

I don't see why 10-28 can't handle take-offs. It's 9000' feet long, which is plenty of runway for 95% of what ATL sees. A fully loaded 747 with a full load of fuel for a 10+ hour flight would need more runway than 9000' especially in ATL in the summer in the middle of the day, with Atlanta's 1000' altitude. Since I haven't seen one of those babies since South African Airways stopped using their 747 for nonstop flights to Johannesburg/Cape Town.

theelectricsm
Jun 1, 2006, 5:07 PM
I don't see why 10-28 can't handle take-offs. It's 9000' feet long, which is plenty of runway for 95% of what ATL sees. A fully loaded 747 with a full load of fuel for a 10+ hour flight would need more runway than 9000' especially in ATL in the summer in the middle of the day, with Atlanta's 1000' altitude. Since I haven't seen one of those babies since South African Airways stopped using their 747 for nonstop flights to Johannesburg/Cape Town.

I don't think it's a question of being able to handle takeoffs -- it certainly can. Logistically, it's easier (or better) to use 10-28 for landings. Waiting in line on the ground isn't like having to wait in line in the air.

Are you saying that you haven't seen a 747 since South African switched to the A340-600? There aren't many at ATL, but Korean has a daily 747 flight to Seoul. Several 747 cargo freighters use ATL regularly. Occasionally you'll see an equipment change from another airline, like Lufthansa.

Rail Claimore
Jun 2, 2006, 9:12 AM
^Those 747s as well as 777s use 9L/27R for a reason, and it's conveniently located next to terminal E and the east air cargo complex. An extention of that runway from 11,889 ft to 13,300 ft is planned.

ThrashATL
Jun 2, 2006, 11:40 AM
There is a constant barrage of Polar Air 747 cargo flights using ATL.

Chachi
Jun 2, 2006, 8:34 PM
Are you saying that you haven't seen a 747 since South African switched to the A340-600? There aren't many at ATL, but Korean has a daily 747 flight to Seoul. Several 747 cargo freighters use ATL regularly. Occasionally you'll see an equipment change from another airline, like Lufthansa.

There is a huge difference between a 747 that is full with passengers and belly cargo and is fully loaded with fuel that will take it to its maximum nautical mile range, like the SAA Johannesburg and CapeTown flights did, and Korean Air's 747 with a 70% passenger load and very little belly cargo, because Korean Air Cargo has a daily 747 flight into ATL.

Most of the cargo flights into ATL are also making stops in other nearby US cities. I know that Lufthansa will usually continue on to Dallas-Ft Worth after it drops off and picks up ATL cargo. Polar Air's 747s hardly ever use Atlanta as a final stop before they begin their intercontinental journey, so they are rarely packed to Maximum take-off weight.

@Rail Claimore: I have heard that many people in the Atlanta aviation community would like 9L/27R to be extended from 11,889 to 13,300 feet, but I haven't heard of any definite plans. Are you getting that info from the ATL Master Plan, because that has projects on it that we aren't going to see for a very long time (South Terminal).

Rail Claimore
Jun 3, 2006, 8:18 PM
There is a huge difference between a 747 that is full with passengers and belly cargo and is fully loaded with fuel that will take it to its maximum nautical mile range, like the SAA Johannesburg and CapeTown flights did, and Korean Air's 747 with a 70% passenger load and very little belly cargo, because Korean Air Cargo has a daily 747 flight into ATL.

Most of the cargo flights into ATL are also making stops in other nearby US cities. I know that Lufthansa will usually continue on to Dallas-Ft Worth after it drops off and picks up ATL cargo. Polar Air's 747s hardly ever use Atlanta as a final stop before they begin their intercontinental journey, so they are rarely packed to Maximum take-off weight.

@Rail Claimore: I have heard that many people in the Atlanta aviation community would like 9L/27R to be extended from 11,889 to 13,300 feet, but I haven't heard of any definite plans. Are you getting that info from the ATL Master Plan, because that has projects on it that we aren't going to see for a very long time (South Terminal).

It's in the ATL master plan and is even specifically mentioned somewhere on the airport's website. I don't expect everything in the master plan to get built, but extending a runway 1411 ft isn't exactly the expensive and complex project two new terminals are.

Snickers52
Jun 8, 2006, 4:33 PM
Hartsfield earns top global efficiency award

By CHRISTOPHER QUINN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 06/08/06

A study released this week rated Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport as the most productive in the world when operating costs were balanced against flights and cargo handled, passengers moved and revenue generated.

"Atlanta is our global top efficiency award winner of 2006. Has been doing excellently," said Tae Oum, by e-mail from South Korea Wednesday.

Oum is president of the Air Transport Research Society and is a professor at the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. He is in Seoul for the Asian release of the annual report on 134 airports worldwide.

Ben DeCosta, general manager of Hartsfield-Jackson, could not be reached for comment.

The lineup of North America's five most efficient airports after Atlanta include: Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Fort Lauderdale and Reno-Tahoe, Nev.

This was the fifth year the report was released. Researchers gather and analyze information from sources such as airport financial statements and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Chunyan Yu, one of Oum's collaborators, said they also measure revenue streams from non-airline services, such as restaurants and stores in an airport and costs for landing jets or planes. Researchers remove factors beyond airport managers' control, such as the size of the jets landing. Larger jets usually pay larger landing fees.

"Atlanta has consistently finished near the top," Yu said.

Newnan
Jun 9, 2006, 3:04 AM
great news

pkp
Jun 9, 2006, 4:45 AM
As bad as ATL is, it still handles more flights more effectivley than pretty much any other airport.

Connect
Jun 9, 2006, 5:13 PM
I won't argue the claim to world's busiest.
But I'm curious as to what effect that really has on marketing the city. The reason I say this is because places like NYC, Chicago & DC/Baltimore each have more than one major airport. I'm confident that if added together that means more service.
Does anyone know what effect HJ's claim to busiest has on business growth?

STrek777
Jun 11, 2006, 9:50 AM
It's in the ATL master plan and is even specifically mentioned somewhere on the airport's website. I don't expect everything in the master plan to get built, but extending a runway 1411 ft isn't exactly the expensive and complex project two new terminals are.

Speaking of the new terminals has anything been released about them? What happened to the lawsuit? Have they released any possible renderings and are they still actually pursuing the new South Terminal complex? :shrug:

Rail Claimore
Jun 11, 2006, 10:37 AM
^The company that designed the initial new international terminal countersued the city, IIRC.

It's a mixed blessing if you ask me. The design for that terminal was NOT the best they could have done. They wanted to add 11(?) new gates when they could easily add double that amount by simply building something symmetrical with the other concourses AND stunning in architecture.

ATLBlaxican
Jun 12, 2006, 2:20 AM
Quick Question for those who may have the answer. Can Airplanes and Cruise Ships run on Ethonal, Hydrogen and or Gas Electric like cars. If so, is there any type of push to make engines that can run on these fuels??? Do you think this will help the Airline industry in the end?

SteveD
Jun 12, 2006, 2:36 AM
I won't argue the claim to world's busiest.
But I'm curious as to what effect that really has on marketing the city. The reason I say this is because places like NYC, Chicago & DC/Baltimore each have more than one major airport. I'm confident that if added together that means more service.
Does anyone know what effect HJ's claim to busiest has on business growth?

If you check earlier posts in this same thread you'll see that Hartsfield Jackson is still busier than most larger metros even if combining multiple airports. New York's aggregate of three (or four if you count White Plains) adds up to more (ATL is busier than any two NYC airports combined), and Chicago, if you add Midway is larger, but it ends there. As for your question, few would likely argue that Hartsfield Jackson AIA is undoubtedly the single most important factor in Atlanta's explosive growth over the last several decades. More important than favorable climate, pro-business atmosphere, large educated available workforce, and favorable cost of living (compared to equally sized or larger metros).

STrek777
Jun 12, 2006, 11:08 PM
Quick Question for those who may have the answer. Can Airplanes and Cruise Ships run on Ethonal, Hydrogen and or Gas Electric like cars. If so, is there any type of push to make engines that can run on these fuels??? Do you think this will help the Airline industry in the end?

Maybe and I mean a BIG MAYBE about cruise ships running on alternate fuels but jet engines are a whole different ball of wax. Jet engines work when the air sucked in is compressed through a series of rotating blades to the back of the engine where the fuel is ignited producing an enormous amount of thrust. I am not sure if ethonol would burn the same as petroleum based products. Introducing a radically new fuel source would, I feel, not only require a total redesign of the engines for aircraft but the aircraft it’s self.

However, Allen Greenspan was on C-SPAN the other day and he made a very interesting point. He suggested that the best way to force the gas price lower is to decrease the demand that the US is putting on the product. He came out and said point blank that the auto industry is the easiest commodity to reform and decreasing demand by default will increase supply thereby lowering the price. He gave some very interesting figures and the fact that he did it all from memory never looking at a single piece of paper is genuinely impressive! :worship:

mayhem
Jun 12, 2006, 11:27 PM
Id love to see a walk / stand markings and a seperating line on all escalators. All the ones in Tokyo had that and it's really efficient.

tennreb
Jun 13, 2006, 3:30 AM
Quick Question for those who may have the answer. Can Airplanes and Cruise Ships run on Ethonal, Hydrogen and or Gas Electric like cars. If so, is there any type of push to make engines that can run on these fuels??? Do you think this will help the Airline industry in the end?

Ethanol can't be used for planes because it has a lower yield of energy. Hydrogen isn't usable in the forseable future. Remember the Hindenburg? I think a small nuclear reactor would work better and would be easier to design to not explode on impact. You'd have to put so much armoring around hydrogen tanks that the plane would be too heavy to take off.

Chachi
Jun 14, 2006, 12:36 AM
Ethanol can't be used for planes because it has a lower yield of energy. Hydrogen isn't usable in the forseable future. Remember the Hindenburg? I think a small nuclear reactor would work better and would be easier to design to not explode on impact. You'd have to put so much armoring around hydrogen tanks that the plane would be too heavy to take off.

Believe it or not, but the US Air Force has tried to get a plane to fly using electric power generated by an onboard nuclear reactor. I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I play one on TV, but the experiment failed because the power generated was not enough to keep the heavy plane flying.

Andrea
Jun 14, 2006, 12:55 AM
Believe it or not, but the US Air Force has tried to get a plane to fly using electric power generated by an onboard nuclear reactor. I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I play one on TV, but the experiment failed because the power generated was not enough to keep the heavy plane flying.

Isn't that the project Lockheed was working on up in Dawson Forest (just north of Atlanta) back in the 1960's? They took the reactor down and later sold the land (10,000 acres or so) to the city for a fairly nominal sum.

:elf:

Chachi
Jun 14, 2006, 3:19 AM
Isn't that the project Lockheed was working on up in Dawson Forest (just north of Atlanta) back in the 1960's? They took the reactor down and later sold the land (10,000 acres or so) to the city for a fairly nominal sum.

:elf:

Very well could be. I know this test was a few decades ago.

STrek777
Sep 13, 2006, 7:50 PM
So after long last they are completely repaiving the 10,000 ft. runway at ATL. They have demolished the old ATC Tower to make way for a brand new, grand, modern, engaging international terminal. Keep in mind they still have absolultly no idea what the final design will look like but by god they are moving dirt like there is no tomorrow. There is still no word as to wether or not they will presue the construction of the proposed "new" South Terminal. Delta is completely renovating the entire south terminal as well as its gate areas on the T,A,and B concourses. The consolidated car rental facility is well underway. Are there any other updates that I have forgotten, and does anyone have any current pictures of the airport or the implosion of the old ATC Tower? Everyone have a good day!! : )

ATLssMania
Sep 13, 2006, 8:29 PM
So after long last they are completely repaiving the 10,000 ft. runway at ATL. They have demolished the old ATC Tower to make way for a brand new, grand, modern, engaging international terminal. Keep in mind they still have absolultly no idea what the final design will look like but by god they are moving dirt like there is no tomorrow. There is still no word as to wether or not they will presue the construction of the proposed "new" South Terminal. Delta is completely renovating the entire south terminal as well as its gate areas on the T,A,and B concourses. The consolidated car rental facility is well underway. Are there any other updates that I have forgotten, and does anyone have any current pictures of the airport or the implosion of the old ATC Tower? Everyone have a good day!! : )

I was at the Airport last Thursday and Sunday and I noticed that they are putting down granite floors (instead of those awful brick ones) in the CPTC and in between Concourses. Also, I flew into Concourse C and D and in both Concourses they were ripping up carpet and installing tile floors, putting up new wall surfaces, and placing stainless steel around the poles that line the Concourse. They have already installed new lighting throughout the Airport. It is going to look like a totally different Airport when they are finished!!

ThrashATL
Sep 14, 2006, 1:37 AM
does anyone have any current pictures of the airport or the implosion of the old ATC Tower? Everyone have a good day!! : )

Try this link at 11Alive news:
http://www.11alive.com/video/player.aspx?aid=56045&sid=82939&bw=&cid=51

lilred731
Sep 14, 2006, 2:07 AM
The old control tower was stuck for a moment. I didn't think it would fall. Then it did.

Tombstoner
Sep 14, 2006, 2:37 AM
I was at the Airport last Thursday and Sunday and I noticed that they are putting down granite floors (instead of those awful brick ones) in the CPTC and in between Concourses. Also, I flew into Concourse C and D and in both Concourses they were ripping up carpet and installing tile floors, putting up new wall surfaces, and placing stainless steel around the poles that line the Concourse. They have already installed new lighting throughout the Airport. It is going to look like a totally different Airport when they are finished!!

Great. It was looking a bit "trapped in the '80s." I've been traveling around Asia for the last two weeks and there are so many really mind-blowing airports that have just been completed. Atlanta H-J can't really compete for architecture, but it is an efficient airport that could at least look up-scale.

Atlriser
Sep 14, 2006, 2:04 PM
My company's been involved with the E, D and now looks like the T renovations (hopefully we'll get our LOI this week). Honestly, in less than a year the WHOLE process has changed tremendously in regards to costs and estimates so forth.....

E was first and we have over 76 changes because of the city's lack of planning ahead and allowing the architects/engineers to actually do a thorough job before releasing drawings and contracts for construction. D has had less than 45 so far and it was much more intense in the renovations and additions.

T documents were much better and appear to finally start to get the process correct after spending $100's of millions on renovations. However, many of the finishes put in D and E over the past couple months are now going to be pulled right back out over the next year or so to match A & B.

Anyway, lol, it's a lot of work and undertaking at one time to keep the airport running daily while doing close to $500 million in cosmetic upgrades; however, the city has done a poor job IMO of upholding it's part in the process overall. Seriously, the International Terminal is going to end up costing the city so much more than it ever should have and it's the city's fault that they now are having to start over. It's a shame that no one from the airport would step up to the council and admit how much the city changed it's initial proposal for construction to the final prodcut designed....which is now being scrapped and ending in law suits that I think the city will loose. Eventhough I have no involvement in design/architecture.....I do know how the city tends to operate. I also know what the city initially requested in design and how they kept adding square footage, equipment, additional gates and so forth to that request but then never wanted to pay for these changes. Then, the council balked at the revised cost estiamtes, but no one from the airport publicly would admit that they had requested such a huge change from initially. Now, it will be 15 years probably before the new terminal ever opens honestly.

Andrea
Sep 14, 2006, 2:18 PM
Now, it will be 15 years probably before the new terminal ever opens honestly.

Wow. :(

Where does the accountability for that lie, in your opinon, Atlriser? Or is it just because the process is so complicated?

Sorry to put you on the spot but it would be valuable to hear a professional's view on this rather than political spin.

ATLssMania
Sep 14, 2006, 2:30 PM
[QUOTE=E was first and we have over 76 changes because of the city's lack of planning ahead and allowing the architects/engineers to actually do a thorough job before releasing drawings and contracts for construction. D has had less than 45 so far and it was much more intense in the renovations and additions.

T documents were much better and appear to finally start to get the process correct after spending $100's of millions on renovations. However, many of the finishes put in D and E over the past couple months are now going to be pulled right back out over the next year or so to match A & B.[/QUOTE]

I was in the D terminal last week and it did not look finished. What kind of things do you think will be "pulled out" to match the other terminals?

Do you know if they will be replacing those lenoleum floors with the tile througout the Airport or are they only putting tile down over the brick floors and carpet?

Atlriser
Sep 14, 2006, 2:51 PM
Andrea: I'm pulling most of this from memory over the past 5 years so don't let forumers jump on me if not absolutely correct but should give you the general idea:

The initial desing for the I-Terminal was 600,000 SF I believe. During the process of design, the city increased it to almost 1 million square feet and I believe was at 1.2 at the final parting of ways. They also added 6 more gates I think taking it from 10 to 16. The added all the equipment for each gate which at the time was over $20 million/gate. Also during the time of the initial cost estimates to the time of the final estiamtes, the cost of steel had increased over 100% because of the booming Chinese/Indian/Dubai construction activities that weren't occuring in such huge quantities 10 years ago. You can only imagine the amount of steel in the design. The city wanted huge open expansions with lots of sunlight....which is good but requires huge amounts of steel. Well when final construction costs were being hammered out the cost had gone from I believe 600 M to 1 B; however, if you will review most of the doumentation in the AJC and reported by the city....they never mention the huge amounts and additions the city requested. It's as if the city did no wrong and the design team did. Well, I'll say this...the design team in place probably has designed 80% of the world's airports over the past 20 years or so. It's not like they didn't know the process and how to do their job. That's my take.

D Concourse: No it's not complete. This is the kind of things delaying it now. Initially the bathroom exhaust systems were separated from the concourse air. The new design of HVAC removed this separation and went to an open plenum I believe. Well, the new bathrooms didn't include any exhaust fans so the air would be pumped back into the concourse....YUCK! So after we started closing up the ceilings, then the inspectors said wait where's the exhaust fans. They weren't designed initially into the new layout....that's the kind of crap you see out their on regular basis. Poor upfront planning and coordination. While I don't know for a fact, my previous experiences lead me to believe it's mainly the city's fault and also the airport always wanting to come in under budget to the council. E alone has had over $30 million in change orders over the original $70 million or so budgeted. The main contractors have always bid the projects as is because they always knew the airport would approve CO's without hesitation. Well now the council has started balking at so many changes and it's threw a wrench into the whole process....i'm not saying whether it's right or wrong I just know it's done backwards lots of time.

Then again, your dealing with such a huge budget, facility and number of contractors....I wouldn't want DeCosta's job for anything. It's only going to be a nightmare given the scale; however, things are short sighted overall which is typical of anything government run IMO!

Atlriser
Sep 14, 2006, 2:57 PM
I don't remember the exact finishes changing because I've been working more on other projects until T was for sure, but the Stainless Steel is remaining and going throught the whole airport. That's part of what we've been doing. The flooring is all going to tile because the carpet just doesn't hold up long term and becoming to expensive to maintain because traffic counts are already ahead of estimates on the growth. I can't remember the finishes on E. Most of the work there was done behind the scenes to the baggage facilities and conveyor systems but much of it is changing I believe from the rumors.

Atlriser
Sep 14, 2006, 3:02 PM
Another note on E and the way the city operates: The construction on E started last September and was to be complete by April/May. In March, the airport halted all work to redesign some things and the project team/contractors haven't worked there since March. We've been waiting on the airport since then and just got word this week that E would start back up during September. Well, I'm sure everyone is aware of how much construction materials have increased since last fall. The city balked about increased costs here as well after everyone on the team kept requesting updates and notifying the city of increasing costs.....we submitted monthly cost increase estimates trying to keep city officials updated and never heard anything all summer. Well, they haven't approved anything in writing but claim they are but also complaning about why it's costing more.....ROFLMAO!!! Hello, calling all idiots.....please answer city hall!

Referring to the intial design of E: The drawings initially sent out for proposals went through 6 MAJOR revisions by the time contracts were signed. While it's not unusual to have addendums and revisions...usually the docs sent for proposals will have maybe 10% (max) of the overall intent changed. When we pull drawings here it's been a pain to sometimes have to go through 6 pages of one room to see what's changed from the first plan to now. You can only imagine trying to do that for the whole E concourse layout. I would say the actual prints used in the field were 35 to 45% changed compared to the initial bid set regarding notes and installtion issues/wall types/systems so forth. The blame lies in both the initial design/city request and the architects and engineers, but once again, my gut tells me it was poor city oversight and short sighted decisions made by the city.

Considering we've had different architects and engineers for different parts of the work at the airport, the one common denominator is always the city.

ATLssMania
Sep 14, 2006, 9:27 PM
Thanks for the replies! Most of the revisions seem "behind the scenes" that passengers would never see...the tile does make the Airport feel so much nicer..as well as new windows in some places too.
Please keep us updated on any cosmetic changes as you notice them...I enjoy reading them!

ATLonthebrain
Sep 19, 2006, 8:38 PM
DeCosta: Jackson International Terminal project 'back on track'
Atlanta Business Chronicle - 7:45 AM EDT Tuesday

The Atlanta City Council has tapped a new joint venture group to design the Maynard H. Jackson International Terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

The new $8.5 million contract has been assigned to Gateway Designers, a joint venture between Gresham, Smith & Partners and Duckett Design Group for architectural and engineering services. The group will design the billion-dollar terminal named in honor of late Atlanta Mayor Maynard H. Jackson.

TDT, the original joint venture group comprised of Leo A. Daly Co., Khafra Engineering Consultants Inc., Anthony C. Baker Architects & Planners and Browder + LeGuizamon and Associates, was terminated Aug. 15, 2005 after failing to provide a design within the allotted budget for the project.

"We are pleased to get this important project back on track," said Ben DeCosta, Hartsfield-Jackson's general manager. "Our international passenger traffic has more than doubled since we hosted the 1996 Olympics, and we expect this trend to continue. At the world's busiest passenger airport it's critical that we remain focused on the future, creating world class facilities that will keep pace with demand."

DeCosta said the international terminal will be built and operational by late 2010 or early 2011. The new international terminal will also provide additional domestic gates, which are in high demand at the Atlanta airport.

Andrea
Sep 21, 2006, 12:52 PM
Atlriser, thanks so very much for those insights on the airport process. I would never have known how all this worked (or doesn't work sometimes). Thanks again!

STrek777
Sep 21, 2006, 1:26 PM
DeCosta: Jackson International Terminal project 'back on track'
Atlanta Business Chronicle - 7:45 AM EDT Tuesday

The Atlanta City Council has tapped a new joint venture group to design the Maynard H. Jackson International Terminal at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.

The new $8.5 million contract has been assigned to Gateway Designers, a joint venture between Gresham, Smith & Partners and Duckett Design Group for architectural and engineering services. The group will design the billion-dollar terminal named in honor of late Atlanta Mayor Maynard H. Jackson.

TDT, the original joint venture group comprised of Leo A. Daly Co., Khafra Engineering Consultants Inc., Anthony C. Baker Architects & Planners and Browder + LeGuizamon and Associates, was terminated Aug. 15, 2005 after failing to provide a design within the allotted budget for the project.

"We are pleased to get this important project back on track," said Ben DeCosta, Hartsfield-Jackson's general manager. "Our international passenger traffic has more than doubled since we hosted the 1996 Olympics, and we expect this trend to continue. At the world's busiest passenger airport it's critical that we remain focused on the future, creating world class facilities that will keep pace with demand."

DeCosta said the international terminal will be built and operational by late 2010 or early 2011. The new international terminal will also provide additional domestic gates, which are in high demand at the Atlanta airport.

YEAH!!!! I am so happy this is finally getting underway :banana:

ThrashATL
Sep 21, 2006, 1:44 PM
I can see Gresham, Smith & Partners doing airport design work but Duckett Design Group have no aviation track record (and a TRULY suckass website, like some out of the box software).

Tombstoner
Sep 21, 2006, 2:19 PM
I hope this new terminal makes a classier, more contemporary architectural statement than the current terminal. I just got back from Asia and the new terminals in BKK, SIN, ICN, and HKG are light years ahead of what I see in the US (though I can't say I've been to any new terminals here...do we have any really spectacular ones that have come on-line recently?)

ATLonthebrain
Sep 21, 2006, 4:40 PM
Tombstoner,

The more soaring and spectacular, the more costly, typically, all the way down to higher HVAC costs (for the tenants to pay) upon completion. These Asian countries have spent billions of dollars to create entirely new airports (many of which have nowhere near the extensive usage of ATL, but are planning for major growth), up to and including manmade islands to serve as the site. If they didn't include a terminal facility to provide that "wow factor" after such a significant overall investment, it would be a wasted/squandered opportunity. But all of that additional height through structural steel and glass carries with it added cost to the user (tenant). The degree to which ATL is willing to go is the question. At a cost of one billion dollars, I suspect it will make a strong enough statement in architectural quality, and also as it may be the last terminal constructed there for some time (depending upon when the South Terminal gets underway, and my guess is it's about a decade away).

For airlines to agree to finance terms for new terminal construction today, virtually all are looking for something that is economical and efficient, not over-the-top and wildly expensive to build. I know from firsthand experience. They want costs to be kept relatively low on a per passenger basis, starting with hard construction spending, especially in today's domestic economic climate. They don't want wasted or unused space in the design, because they are typically going to end up paying for it through their rates and charges. The more space that is dedicated to concessions, the better, as those are revenue generating operations. There are still very few airlines operating in the black today, and more than ever they fight airports at every turn when it comes to proposed expansion typically resulting in increases in costs.

The International Terminal @ SFO is striking, and a big departure from most in the US, I think. It is also a major US gateway. It could be its physical position more than anything, looming overhead as the portal to the entire horseshoe shaped terminal complex roadway. Passing under a monstrous building like that is very attention getting, almost impossible to miss, with the SAN FRANCISCO name sprawled across the front in a frosted and clear glass contrast. Terminal D @ DFW is very nice, but far more impressive beyond security than in the ticketing hall, in my opinion. The same goes for the new International Terminal @ IAH. That is going to be part of the design challenge in ATL, I think. How do we (the new team) create a design that makes a real statement of progress from what was designed and built with the original Midfield Terminal (though ATL has done wonders with the 26-year old facility through ongoing renovation and the addition of the Atrium). It may not end up being incredibly stunning, per se, but I think it will be a drastic improvement over what currently exists. And keep in mind that most of what exists today was designed well over 30 years ago. Times, and expectations, have changed in a big way since then.

If it comes even close to what was initially proposed and displayed in rendering and the videos, I think most of us will be happy with the debut in about 4yrs. And by then, it will be sorely needed, especially in light of DLs big ongoing International push. And as the article stated, these gates will be used for domestic flights also, since the vast majority of service to ATL will always be domestic. More swing gates like those in Concourse E will be a welcome addition, greatly increasing flexibility and overall capacity.

I'm flying through ATL in late Oct, and am looking forward to seeing more of the renovations progress then. The A & B Concourses were looking good, and I have heard the same is true for C & D. As I'm simply connecting, I won't get to see the Main Terminal (North & South) on this trip. If any forumers are there soon and can take some pics and post, that would be fantastic!

ATLonthebrain

Andrea
Sep 21, 2006, 4:47 PM
I love the Atlanta airport and it is clearly the economic engine that drives this region. I also find it easy to use.

From the outside, however, it looks like a warehouse. But that's okay.

Buckley
Sep 21, 2006, 5:57 PM
For the time being, I'm just happy they are sprucing up the interior. That carpet has seen better days.

Another airport I really liked was Ronald Reagan in DC. Lots of glass and very airy.

Tombstoner
Sep 21, 2006, 7:40 PM
ATLonthebrain: You're right, of course, that the comparison with Asian terminals isn't completely fair, but I think design need not be expensive to be impressive. I got a sneak peak at Suvarnibhumi last week (it opens next week) and was struck more by the innovative use of volume than the quality/expense of the materials. Still, $1B doesn't buy what it used to :). But I hope you're right and that it will still make a statement. (as an aside, I've only recently spent some time in the Georgia World Congress complex, and think that it's a good example of a building that isn't extravagant -- it's even a bit boring -- but oddly stately).

Andrea: I agree with you that the airport is amazingly efficient. I know a lot of people complain about how difficult it is to use, but like you, I have no complaints considering how many passengers it has to accomodate. The warehouse part of it does bother me, however (call me shallow ;) )

Buckley: Yes, the carpet had to go. The industrial grey granite tiles aren't the most inviting, however. If you're gonna pop for granite, get something with a little pizzazz. Now that you mention it, Reagan is nice. Pretty small though.

Tombstoner
Sep 21, 2006, 7:41 PM
posted twice...it wasn't that insightful

STrek777
Nov 10, 2006, 6:27 PM
Does anyone happen to have any air shots of the runway re-construction? Aslo Delta posts another profit, excluding reorganizational items. The new south treminal construction is well underway. Also I know that they announced that the airport has selttled with an architect and a price for the new terminal but does any one ahve any information on the specifics of the new international terminal and/or renderings?

ATLonthebrain
Nov 11, 2006, 1:39 AM
The South Terminal construction isn't expected to begin this decade, as far as I know. The East (International) Terminal will probably get going in 2008, from the sound of things. I'd say when that is finished (2010-2011), the South Terminal will get underway. By the time that happens, expect a major redesign, because I think demand will be for more than a meager 31-gate facility. From the renderings on the webite, it looks like there will be room for at least one, perhaps two, linear concourses east of the site. So maybe room for a total of 100 additional gates. I'm not suggesting that they would be built at once, just that there is the ability to expand. Also keep in mind that the Consolidated Rental Car Center is also moving along, and that's a massive and expensive project. And the interior upgrades happening now are costing something like $500M. Big money for a big airport.

As for renderings of the East Terminal, it's way too soon for that. The City just approved the contract with the new architects. It'll probably be spring before we see anything substantial. I don't think it'll be too much like what was already created, or people will be asking what the hell the Airport was thinking in having a facility designed almost exactly as it had already been. Give it a few months, and we'll see something.

Happy the runway resurfacing is complete, and they're back at 5 parallels! Go ATL...

I flew through twice last month, while 8R-26L was still out of service, and I had virtually no problems whatsoever. The airport worked incredibly well. Great experience, and good service and performance on Delta.

ATLonthebrain

smArTaLlone
Nov 12, 2006, 7:37 PM
I think what STrek777 saw was the construction for trains to the new rental car facility.

Harry Cane
Nov 14, 2006, 4:21 PM
I came through the airport yesterday. Boy, the remodeling is really making progress. The floors look especially good. Much better than those 70s dark brown pavers. Coupled with the new carpeting in the gate areas and the new chairs Delta is putting in, it’s the nicest airport areas I’ve ever seen.

As extra icing on that travel cake, I got to fly on one of the redeployed Song 757’s. Boy, those are nice. The IFE was great. If it’s any indication of things to come, I’ll really enjoy flying Delta.

Harry Cane
Nov 14, 2006, 4:21 PM
Deleted double post.

cactuspunk
Nov 14, 2006, 4:30 PM
I came through the airport yesterday. Boy, the remodeling is really making progress. The floors look especially good. Much better than those 70s dark brown pavers. Coupled with the new carpeting in the gate areas and the new chairs Delta is putting in, it’s the nicest airport areas I’ve ever seen.

As extra icing on that travel cake, I got to fly on one of the redeployed Song 757’s. Boy, those are nice. The IFE was great. If it’s any indication of things to come, I’ll really enjoy flying Delta.

Yeah it makes you wonder why Delta ever tried to create Song Airlines. Just fix up the original.

STrek777
Jan 8, 2007, 7:34 PM
Hartsfield-Jackson nips Chicago's O'hare for second year in a row

By JIM THARPE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 01/04/07

Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport — for the second year in a row — retained its title as the world's busiest airport, the Federal Aviation Administration reported Thursday.

Atlanta's airport recorded 976,307 takeoffs and landings in 2006, compared to 958,643 for Chicago's O'Hare, which came in second. Dallas Fort-Worth came in third with 702,713.

The numbers were down a bit compared to last year, said Kathleen Bergen, FAA spokesman for the agency's Atlanta office, which oversees the Southern region. Atlanta's air traffic was down about 0.4 percent, while Chicago was off about 1.4 percent and Dallas about 2.2 percent.

"We attribute that to a bit of a slower pace in the industry in general," Bergen said.

O'Hare came in ahead of Atlanta from 2001-2004, but Atlanta took the lead in 2005 and retained it last year, according to FAA statistics.

Atlanta has a decided advantage when it comes to the "world's busiest" bragging rights. The city has only one airport, while some major metro areas, like Chicago have two. Midway Airport also serves Chicago and had 298,547 takeoffs and landings in 2006, an increase of about 2.7 percent over the year before.

:banana: GO ATL!!!! :tup:

supastar
Jan 9, 2007, 12:11 PM
I had an hour layover at Hartsfield coming home from Christmas. I believe i was in terminal E and then B. The airport looked great, much more modern than i remember and i was a little surprised at the variety of eateries and shops compared with Newark and LaGuardia. Overall, for such a huge and busy airport, it's super easy to navigate.

Harry Cane
Jan 9, 2007, 3:21 PM
The new flooring makes a world of difference. Those brown pavers looked soooo 70's.

I came in on Concourse E this weekend and they've finished the moving walkways on the upper level that gets you from the gates to passport control. Nice. They have so much commissioned art there, which is a shame because no one gets to look at it. They should move that to a more public place.

They're also making progress on what I believe is site prepping for the new International terminal. They've really moved a ton of dirt there.

Atlriser
Jan 9, 2007, 4:30 PM
E & D are both wrapping up the cosmetic items. We're currently on A, B, & C finishing up the majority of the cosmetic work there as well. I'll say the airport is looking quite SPIFFY but I'm biased probably since having a very small hand involved in actual construction.

There hasn’t been any news at all on the bidding schedule for the international terminal but originally the airport wanted to have bidding docs ready by summer time. I think their schedule is a little overly optimistic for that to occur but you never know with the airport. Personally speaking I hope they don't push for such a schedule and end up with crap for drawings and coordination like occurred with the outset on the E Terminal Renovations and has haunted that portion of the project from the outset. I'd rather they take the necessary time upfront to ensure a smooth project through the whole process.

ATLssMania
Jan 10, 2007, 4:19 AM
E & D are both wrapping up the cosmetic items. We're currently on A, B, & C finishing up the majority of the cosmetic work there as well. I'll say the airport is looking quite SPIFFY but I'm biased probably since having a very small hand involved in actual construction.

There hasn’t been any news at all on the bidding schedule for the international terminal but originally the airport wanted to have bidding docs ready by summer time. I think their schedule is a little overly optimistic for that to occur but you never know with the airport. Personally speaking I hope they don't push for such a schedule and end up with crap for drawings and coordination like occurred with the outset on the E Terminal Renovations and has haunted that portion of the project from the outset. I'd rather they take the necessary time upfront to ensure a smooth project through the whole process.

I flew into Concourse E over Christmas and it seems a little outdated. Do you know if it will be getting the new floors, lighting, carpet, etc. like the other terminals? Also, the check-in and gate desks looked very different compared to the other concourses...

atlantaguy
Jan 10, 2007, 11:18 AM
^Are you sure it was E? I come and go through E all the time, and it's been greatly improved. The food court is totally redone with new choices, the moving sidewalks seem to be about done to Customs & Immigration, etc.

john3eblover
Jan 10, 2007, 4:58 PM
....Terminal E is fantastic, ive only been to a few airports that even come close. You must be thinking of another terminal....

ATLssMania
Jan 10, 2007, 6:10 PM
....Terminal E is fantastic, ive only been to a few airports that even come close. You must be thinking of another terminal....


No..it was E. The floors were not tile...they were what I guess you call "terrazzo"...didn't look as nice as the other terminals because they had scuff marks all over them. The carpet didn't look so great either...and the signage was not the new signage you see throughout the rest of the airport...it was this brownish/red signage. I guess I am picky. :)

mayhem
Jan 10, 2007, 7:00 PM
US Airways increases bid for Delta by $2 billion

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2007/01/08/daily25.html?jst=b_ln_hl

Atlanta-based Delta (Pink Sheets: DALRQ) has already rejected US Airways' bid and filed a standalone plan to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, valuing itself at between $9.4 billion and $12 billion.

However, on Wednesday, Tempe, Ariz.-based US Airways (NYSE: LCC) said its increased bid would provide between $12.7 billion and $15.4 billion in value to Delta's unsecured creditors.

"While our original proposal offered substantially more value to Delta's unsecured creditors than the Delta stand-alone plan, we are making this revised offer to eliminate any doubt that a merger with US Airways offers Delta's unsecured creditors significantly more value," said Doug Parker, US Airways chairman and CEO. "Without the support of the creditors, our offer is set to expire on Feb. 1. It is time for this process to move forward."

Delta's unsecured creditors would receive $5 billion in cash and 89.5 million shares of US Airways stock, under the terms of the new bid. Based on the closing price of US Airways stock on Jan. 9, the new offer has a market value of about $10.2 billion. The airline's original bid was valued at $8 billion.

But Delta is standing firm on plans to come out of Chapter 11 in spring 2007. Delta has said its creditors can expect to recover about 63 percent to 80 percent of their allowed claims. The airline projects operating margins from 8 percent in 2007 to 10.5 percent in 2010 with a return to profitability in 2007 and an increase in net income, after profit sharing, from about $500 million in 2007 to about $1.2 billion in 2010.

Delta has argued the US Airways bid's projected network and cost "synergies" are based on "deeply flawed economic assumptions." Delta said US Airways' claimed $1.65 billion in synergies and financial benefits from the proposed merger are overstated because US Airways has "ignored major negative synergies that previous transactions have proven will occur."

Delta also maintains the combined company would be stuck with a high total debt load in a fragile industry, noting its analysis shows the merger would create $23 billion in total debt for the combined entity. This compares with $10 billion in total debt Delta expects to carry when it comes out of bankruptcy.

On Wednesday, Delta released a statement saying US Airways' new bid "does not address significant concerns that have been raised about the initial US Airways proposal and, in fact, would increase the debt burden of the combined company by yet another $1 billion."

STrek777
Jan 11, 2007, 4:02 PM
US Airways increases bid for Delta by $2 billion

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2007/01/08/daily25.html?jst=b_ln_hl

The GA Senators and Congressmen are committed to fighting this thing to the end. Our CEO has made several trips to Capitol Hill to drum up support to deny the merge of the two carriers. We now have state governors committed to fighting the merge any way that they can. Economists don’t see how the merged companies would benefit the flying public in any way. This would also create huge gaps in the budgets of several major cities around the US and devastate the economies of other cities. The only reason Doug Parker is still perusing Delta is greed plain and simple.

US Airways has always been ranked at the bottom for customer service, canceled flights, lost luggage, maintenance problems, and low employee morale. US Airways and America West are still operating on two separate reservation systems, two separate union contracts for all areas within the company that has a union, two separate pay scales, oh and nearly all of their aircraft still has each company’s original livery. US Airways corporate structure right now is in shambles and they want to take on a merge with Delta... why? Greed plain and simple.

Delta went into bankruptcy with debt somewhere to the tune of 22 Billion. When Delta exits bankruptcy we will only have around 9 - 10 Billion dollars in debt. We have been able to renegotiate the leases on nearly every aircraft, and we have put millions into technology to help us stream line our operation.

We are the largest carrier over the Atlantic, the only major US carrier into Africa and don’t forget we still have the DOT certification to fly to Cairo, we have the most flights into India than any other US carrier, the only US carrier flying from NYC to BOM non-stop, we are expanding our presence in the Middle East, we are just barely the second largest carrier into the Caribbean, the largest carrier into Mexico and Central America, we have greatly increased our flights into South America, and we are adding flights and routs over the Pacific. Then there is the fact that we are the only carrier in US history to fly to all 50 states and D.C. as part of regular daily schedules.

Our customer service levels are coming up, we're loosing less luggage, often our flights are around 90% on time or within 15 minutes of there scheduled time, we are upgrading the interiors of all our aircraft, in most aircraft you will have your own personal TV with 46 channels, games, and music selections. Delta may have for a few years lost sight of the prize and seamed to give up on its goals but everyone here is working extremely hard to right our wrongs and others are beginning to see that.

US Airways wants what we have worked hard to gain and it is motivated out of greed... plain and simple.

tennreb
Jan 12, 2007, 2:21 AM
The Memphis Commercial Appeal is reporting that Delta and Northwest are in merger talks.

ThrashATL
Jan 13, 2007, 8:37 AM
The Memphis Commercial Appeal is reporting that Delta and Northwest are in merger talks.

Merger? Delta won't go willingly with USAir and Northwest is in much worse shape and more heavily unionized than USAir.

atlantaguy
Jan 13, 2007, 9:43 AM
The Memphis Commercial Appeal is reporting that Delta and Northwest are in merger talks.

Yeah, it was in the AJC too tennreb. It's going to be a very interesting month.

tennreb
Jan 13, 2007, 9:00 PM
Merger? Delta won't go willingly with USAir and Northwest is in much worse shape and more heavily unionized than USAir.

The difference is that Northwest has extremely valuable Pacific routes. It is the largest US carrier to Asia, and Delta is extremely weak in that area. Also, the executives at USAir were forced out when AmericaWest took over. The Delta execs want to keep their jobs, which they could do with a NWA merger.

Rail Claimore
Jan 13, 2007, 10:48 PM
^I was about to say, I could see that merger working out a bit better, and NWA's transpacific routes are way too valuable not to consider. We're talking a major hub at NRT for Delta here, if this were to take place. Delta would be by far the biggest or second-biggest US carrier to every part of the globe. Only AA would be competing in Latin America and United in the Transpacific market.

shanthemanatl
Jan 14, 2007, 3:50 AM
Do you guys think the headquarters would be more likely to remain in Atlanta with a Delta/Northwest merger?

Fiorenza
Jan 14, 2007, 4:28 AM
A forced USAir merger is looking less likely every day; a standalone Delta, or eventual merger with Northwest (once they come out of Chapter 11) is looking more likely. As to where the HQ would be, I've no real clue, however Delta has far more infrastructure in Atlanta than Northwest has in Minneapolis. USAir put a February 1st dropdead on their offer, which doesn't really make sense unless their financing can't be guaranteed beyond that date. I'm wondering if they plan to make a pitch for Northwest if the Delta deal falls through, although with either airline the USAir management has basically the same problem of trying to digest too much too fast, and no real international airline experience.

Tombstoner
Jan 14, 2007, 1:10 PM
Do you guys think the headquarters would be more likely to remain in Atlanta with a Delta/Northwest merger?

As this would happen after both NW and DL independently got out of bankrupcy on their own terms, I think this might be a true merger of equals rather than a buyout, so while MEM and CVG might be downgraded from actual hubs, I think both carriers may operate side-by-side with separate HQs in MSP and ATL, like the merger of AF and KLM kept the HQs intact in Paris and Amsterdam.

MarketsWork
Jan 14, 2007, 3:27 PM
As this would happen after both NW and DL independently got out of bankrupcy on their own terms, I think this might be a true merger of equals rather than a buyout, so while MEM and CVG might be downgraded from actual hubs, I think both carriers may operate side-by-side with separate HQs in MSP and ATL, like the merger of AF and KLM kept the HQs intact in Paris and Amsterdam.

I seriously doubt you would see that happen here -- it's just not the American way! Only in socialist Europe, with a negotiated merger between two nationally-subsidized flag carriers, would such an inefficient arrangement "fly." Some US mergers have been sold with plans for "dual" headquarters (I seem to recall Wachovia and First Atlanta), but efficiency always wins out once the lesser stockholders have been placated. One of the two will be the top dog and get its way.

atlantaguy
Jan 14, 2007, 7:40 PM
I read somewhere last week that Northwest has some sort of Minnesota-backed "poison pill" type thing in place to ensure the HQ's remains in the Twin Cities.......Hope I read it wrong, because I really can see Delta & Northwest linking up.