Originally Posted by
LarryJ
The airlines are tenants. They don't own the facilities. They pay rent and landing fees to the airport authority.
Major airport projects are a joint effort between the airport authority, local & federal government, and the airlines. If the airport and government agencies are not ready to fund an improvement, the airlines can't do them on their own. Similarly, the airline has to be prepared to pay a portion of the costs plus increased fees to support the project. It is difficult to get everyone to agree and all of the funds allocated. It's no surprise that these projects take decades.
Yes, and as it relates to Dulles, the Airports Authority announced a new lease agreement back in March, to take effect at the end of this year. It's a 15 year lease and includes a capital construction plan, which outlines the planned improvements at IAD.
Since it takes a simple majority of fee revenue to approve the lease at the airport, that means it's something they negotiated directly with UA.
Anyway, United signs the lease, and agrees to the scope of the plan and the proposed fees to support it over the next 15 years, and MWAA can then borrow money based on that assurance. That's where the money comes from. The plan is premised on more UA traffic (generating more airport revenue) to pay for the new facilities.
Originally Posted by
drewguy
Good set of issues!
On 1 - I don't think it needs a loop until the hypothetical E/F concourse is built (in addition to C/D). Some of the renderings suggest that original plan may not be anywhere in play, with MWAA looking now at various ways of connecting the various concourses directly. If all that happens is a rebuild of C/D, it's not clear a loop is needed. D to A would be the furthest one would go, which is basically the same distance even with a loop. What I do hope they do is build a separate/segregated station at least under new D to take arriving international pax directly to IAB (no people movers). Not sure what segregation requirements are, but presumably easier to do just for a stretch from D-->B-->IAB than also including C and A. They could then funnel all int'l arrivals to D/B gates and tow planes to departure gates as needed.
On 2 - I've noticed that problem, which seems to have gotten worse and worse. The real issue is there's not enough room to drop off pax, so vehicles are 3-4 lanes wide, with only one meaningful travel lane. Other airports have this problem too, but have solved it in various ways. Perhaps segregated lanes and ramps could be built, as part of 3.
On 4, would be ideal, but not sure how to promote that.
Yes, the limited information we've seen about the plans address all of these points.
On 1), the plan isn't to complete the loop, but rather build new concourses around the AeroTrain facilities that already exist - get more value from that infra. The new Tier 3 and new Tier 2 concourses would be right on top of AeroTrain infrastructure, enabling better use without adding more expensive tunnels. The longer term master plan still allows for expansion, but that would be down the road.
On 2) and 3) they've shown concepts for totally re-working the roadway network coming into the airport, to separate arrivals and departures at an earlier point and add more effective curb space for pickup and drop off. This also includes a capital budget for some kind of 'Saarinen Circle' development that seems to replace the surface parking lot with both more drop off space as well as structured parking - the specific details are again yet to be revealed, but it's something accounted for in the new lease and capital plan.
For 4) I'm sure the Airports Authority would love more flights and more competition, even if UA wouldn't. But they're limited in what they can do.