Originally Posted by
CPRich
The authority "claims" is was built to USAir's specifications because it was.
If you haven't been there since 1995 then you'll need to imagine what a facility built for 21M passengers looks like with 9M passengers. One terminal is shut down, others are closed off/boarded up half way down the hallway. The infrastructure is similarly underutilized.
If they can sell/lease the recovered land to pay for the investment, and improve security flow, remove the need to take a people mover from one terminal to the other, etc., it seems like a logical move to me. (I haven't analyzed the numbers, but if they're correct, it makes sense).
Does it "need" it? No, it can function as it does today. But I have no issues making it better.
I would guess they will sell or lease some of the land for a hotel.
Originally Posted by
Often1
The airport functions at roughly 42% of its design. Why on earth would it not try to staunch some of the expenses?
Sometimes, one has to spend some money to save more.
Exactly.