Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport - Page 53

Fiorenza · #**1041** Posted **Feb 28, 2008, 2:54 PM**

So is the merger off?

ATLtoNYC · #**1042** Posted **Feb 28, 2008, 3:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

So is the merger off?

Looks like it. According to CBS 46, the talks have been called off.

www.cbs46.com/news/15436291/detail.html

megalopolis · #**1043** Posted **Feb 28, 2008, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by NativeAtlantan

That will be named the Holbrook South Gate Complex.

;-)

You jest, but I could totally see that happening.

john3eblover · #**1044** Posted **Feb 28, 2008, 5:09 PM**

Mergers are inevitable. If not DL/NW, then somebody else. But it will happen

megalopolis · #**1045** Posted **Feb 28, 2008, 6:33 PM**

I almost want to see this deal fall apart now, just to screw over the greedy Northwest pilots.

ATLonthebrain · #**1046** Posted **Feb 28, 2008, 6:53 PM**

I highly doubt there was much thought to dual-tracking for the people mover, being that it, along with the rest of the Midfield Terminal Complex (excluding Conc E, of course), was designed over 30-years ago. At that time, were there any other airports with this sort of built-in flexibility? Probably not. Quite frankly, it was a marvel that the trains ended up underground at all, since the initial plan was for the tracks to be at ground level and exposed. Other newer airports can improve on ATL's shortcomings or limitations. Can't go back and change it now. The airport has to work with what it has, and it does, every day.

There hasn't been much talk about it, but seems the Master Plan image I saw recently is showing an expansion of the existing Main Terminal and just a people mover going over to the future South Gate Complex. Doesn't appear there is a terminal showing down there any longer, but 4 parallel concourses similar to the existing layout.

john3eblover · #**1047** Posted **Feb 28, 2008, 7:33 PM**

well, UA has 747s as well :-D

midtowngt · #**1048** Posted **Feb 28, 2008, 9:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThrashATL

You missed my point. Dual tracking would be two tracks on each side of the station. A train can bypass any/all stations from end to end, thus allowing express trains for convenience or security purposes.

That was the plan the last time I saw the drawings...it was either adding a second set of tracks on both sides or this bazaar "sky bridge" concept that was basically an elevated people mover. The company I was working for was providing on-call cost service for the airport. The dual tracking option was cheaper.

ThrashATL · #**1049** Posted **Feb 28, 2008, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by midtowngt

That was the plan the last time I saw the drawings...it was either adding a second set of tracks on both sides or this bazaar "sky bridge" concept that was basically an elevated people mover. The company I was working for was providing on-call cost service for the airport. The dual tracking option was cheaper.

I always wondered why that was never originally done. I'm sure the real reason it wasn't done is that it wasn't needed back in the 70's, a terminal on the east end was never envisioned. You had all the services, the tower, post office, cargo and Delta.... nobody would be crazy enough to try and build over all THAT... Who saw a runway crossing 285?

Fiorenza · #**1050** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 6:31 AM**

Delta, airport spar over fund for terminal

My guess is they need the $140 million contingency fund to settle the lawsuit arising from the previous design group that the racist Ben DeCosta and the city fired only a week before the final drawings were due for the Maynard Holbrook Jackson International Terminal, in August 2005. The fired design group was 42% minority-owned, but that wasn't good enough. The new design group is 50+% minority owned, and the time delay will result in an additional $400+ million in cost, plus the cost of settling the lawsuit. Now they also have Delta mad at them due to the huge contingency fund which Delta should never have to underwrite.

Frankly, if I were Delta, I'd say "enough", break up the Atlanta bullshit, and start to build hubs in Charlotte, Nashville, and Jacksonville.

The above story is one example of why Atlanta needs to get enough non-racist voting base in the city to throw out the racist, corrupt political class and put in a truly diverse city leadership. Until they do it, the current investors will continue to leave and new investors will stay away. It's in your hands, Atlanta.

ThrashATL · #**1051** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 2:02 PM**

Such a great move by Atlanta government (incompetent to the last). Kill the old deal and then go after a design inferior to the first that costs more money while pissing off the largest tenant responsible for 3/4ths of your airport rent! BRILLIANT! Why does Ben DeCosta still have a job?

Andrea · #**1052** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 3:51 PM**

I'm all for efficiency but I'm wondering if the folks who are hollering about racism now were equally sensitive to alleged racism 30 years ago when blacks were completely excluded from city (state and county) business, as they had been for the previous 250 years.

WSUSOM · #**1053** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 4:01 PM**

Never mind, there will always be those who play the racism card. Truly sad in this day and age!!

Fiorenza · #**1054** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 4:29 PM**

What happens now is no more or less wrong than what happened then.

john3eblover · #**1055** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrea

I'm all for efficiency but I'm wondering if the folks who are hollering about racism now were equally sensitive to alleged racism 30 years ago when blacks were completely excluded from city (state and county) business, as they had been for the previous 250 years.

So the solution to the problem was to reverse the situation?

Andrea · #**1056** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 5:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by john3eblover

So the solution to the problem was to reverse the situation?

Er, whites aren't excluded from city, state or county business. They still have the lion's share, even though they make up only a third of the city's population.

dante2308 · #**1057** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 7:12 PM**

deleted

Fiorenza · #**1058** Posted **Mar 3, 2008, 10:10 PM**

Andrea, whites certainly don't have the lion's share of Atlanta city business, and anyway, race shouldn't enter into it. What if whites had made the comment that "blacks make up only 49% of the city population", back in the day?

dante2308 · #**1059** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 6:27 AM**

Predominantly white areas don't often elect black officials. It is obvious there are still racial tensions about. This is why the South has the reputation it does.

Disgusting.

Andrea · #**1060** Posted **Mar 4, 2008, 1:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

Andrea, whites certainly don't have the lion's share of Atlanta city business, and anyway, race shouldn't enter into it.

Sure they do, Fiorenza. Look at who handles the city's big ticket items like bond work, banking and finance, insurance, airport construction, water/sewer rehabilitation, urban planning, etc.

The argument by whites that everything should be "color blind" is an essence the argument that dominance by whites (often to the exclusion of others) should be continued. That was the rallying cry of segregationists back in the 1960s and 70s. The courts basically said, "Hey, we're not that dumb," in that a "race neutral" policy is simply a way of maintaining the bias in favor of the dominant socioeconomic (and ethnic) group.