Originally Posted by Spiff
While DIA may be more efficient than Stapleton was, the question remains: was it really necessary? And was the process that brought it into being even close to being on the up-and-up?
Spiff,
The former Mayor of Denver, Federico Pena, and the commission that sold Colorado the idea of DIA had several selling points for the justification of DIA back in the 80's. One that sticks in my mind was the speculation of rising traffic in and through Denver, via Stapleton. The figures Pena used was the speculation that traffic in the year 2000 would eclipse 77 million passengers and that Stapleton could never handle this.
(I never paid attention to this at that time as I was not a traveler but in hindsight, this speculated statistic was straight out of Fantasy Island)
Also, the size of the airport with room for expansion, separation of runways was also a selling point. This is a great concept except that the airport designers had a flaw in their design. The runways are 4,000 feet apart which is the minimum distance for low visibility simultaneous flight operations. However, the designers failed to account for the mile high altitude, which mandates an additional 10 percent meaning for visibility simultaneous flight operations to be valid at DIA (DEN) then the runways have to be 4,400 feet apart.
I agree with
BoulderFlyer regarding the weather delays and the less frequency at DIA. I dreaded flying with inclement weather present at Stapleton because I knew that I would be delayed. I, too, can count on one hand (with fingers left over) the instances of weather delays at DIA in 10 years of travel. I don't have enough hands and fingers to count the weather delays I experienced at Stapleton regarding weather delays.
Was there justification for DIA? Well, no, not in terms of volume. However, the logistical benefits outweigh the few adequacies of Stapleton.
I will not speak of the DIA TSA Shoe Carnival as I do not want to get your blood pressure to skyrocket.
Best regards,
RD