JuanTT

One call to China AIrport Construction Company and flights begin 2022 latest. The Admirals Club could add another 18 months but call CAAC and get that bit done in two months, three max. Full-color Mao mural gratis.

econometrics

Terminal D took 5 years (appx) to build, so I think the 5-6 year estimate here is very realistic.

I'm guessing they will have to tear down the current Skylink elevated track in order to build the terminal? But maybe with the F terminal only being 24 gates, they are accounting for building inside / around that. I'm sure that would make the construction process go a little slower.

Terminal D has 27 gates, so 24 on the new terminal seems realistic... especially if it's all widebody.

I do think it's very possible that there's no customs / immigration at the new terminal and instead is just a people mover over to D. Then again, with AA's expansion into Central America lately out of DFW, I'm guessing they would like another CBP location at KDFW.

wrp96

When the Skylink was built, it was specifically designed to accommodate a future F terminal.

econometrics

I realize that was the intent... but that was nearly 20 years ago. If you look at the overhead pics today, the F terminal would have to be nearly a footprint copy of D in order to do that.

Building a terminal around an elevated train track should be fun for the engineers and construction crews.

wrp96

True dat!

arc727

It'll be interesting for sure to see what they do with the Skylink, but if they do tear down the track that's already in the future "F" spot, it would seem like such a waste. Imagine the money and riding time that could have been saved from Skylink going straight to D/E instead of an unnecessary journey around the Express South parking lot.

In addition, if they do rebuild the tracks at F, they'd have to at least build something temporary in the meantime as there is no way they're going to shut down the Skylink for 5 years. So while I'm also not sure how they build a terminal around the existing tracks, I would think that would be the smartest thing.

AggieNzona

I'm assuming the SKY LINK stays as is. You only need a few Terminal Touches on it to connect. Any shape can be built around and under it. Without Parking and IFS it will essentially be like a extension of D with a moving sidewalk I assume to connect. The closest gates would be used for International and segregated from the others, for domestic. I would also assume the domestic O&D flights would retrieve luggage in F and than go curbside for pick up or a bus to rental cars, parking and other terminals.

MrMan

Why not just take the Term D plans and rebuild using same plans. That should cut a couple years off

stewlevine

Pretty certain when they replaced the old TrAAin with Skylink they explicitly said they laid it out to support an eventual Terminal F.

As for the plans, reading both the S-T and Morning News coverage, it appears they are thinking of these much more in terms of the needs of a connecting customer instead of O/D and trying to take into account changes in security, planes, technology, local transportation - in other words a design for today, instead of a design for 2005. I would definitely rather see this take a year longer and have a design that isn't stale as soon as it opens.

MarkOK

I can't see how in that site it makes much sense to do anything that is substantially different than D. There isn't enough room really to put gates on two sides of a terminal there, especially if we are talking about widebody gates. If you laid a two sided terminal N-S, you would need clearance under the skylink and clearance widthwise between skylink support columns which is maybe doable structurally but not ideal (is there a security risk?). If you build a NS terminal toward the E side, and build stingers towards the W, you don't have enough length for more than a few gates on either side and it would be a squeeze to put in two stingers.

As for the convenience of two sided terminals, I think it is highly overrated for a few reasons. First, I don't think it substantially reduces walking distances. Putting gates on the outside of a C allows for a denser configuration of gates per length of walking in the terminal than a straight line anyways. Even at D (and E satellite), each corner comfortably hosts three stands adding some density as well. Also, most connecting traffic is changing terminals anyways and the biggest reduction in walking distance has to do with average distance from the gate to the inner terminal train system. At DFW, you are usually a few gates from a Skylink. At a place like DEN or ATL, you are often farther than that. Secondly, two sided terminals don't accommodate concessions and bathrooms as comfortably. DFW has space on the inside of the curve to put concessions and bathrooms near every gate without feeling cramped!

My bet is that the airport and AA wants a competitive design process to make sure they've vetted their options, but will go with a D type of design, which, to remind you, is widely acclaimed. I bet they build a N half first and then a S half as (and if) needed later (though, maybe all at once). My bet it that they connect F via a connection building to D with two levels, the upper being for international arrivals to funnel towards D to avoid a new international arrivals being buildt. (like what exists between B and D now). On the inside edge of the of terminal, now, I wouldn't be surprised there to see bigger differences for better ticketing and security areas and maybe a new hotel, conference, or office building type of a space....

Herb687

As one of The Ticket's favorite drops goes: "This is a [****]ing disaster."

econometrics

jayer

It didn't really make any real financial sense to tear down the old parking garages just to replace them with bigger better ones. But they did. They are bigger. They are arguably better (except for getting into and out of, but I digress). Not to mention tearing down an entire hotel just to move it over a few feet. How many millions did that cost? But it is bigger and better.

Flyer78

IF the Skylink path needs to be modified, the worst-case scenario in my mind is "breaking the loop" during the necessary phases of construction. In other words, D and E become defacto terminal stations. Getting from E to D would require "the long way" via C, A, and B. D to E would be the same in reverse. Not ideal, but likely better than an airside shuttle, and certainly better than a landside shuttle requiring another trip through TSA. And it will still be better than the groundbreaking, oft-broken, unidirectional trAAin...

LovePrunes

If the Grand Hyatt at DFW seems to you like the old Hyatt torn down and "moved over a few feet", you need to get out to more hotels! It's on a completely different scale, brand position, facilities, and about 30 years more modern amenities.
As far as tearing down and rebuilding garages, more garage space means more income for the airport, which is the biggest moneymaker for any airport. Makes complete financial sense once you stop and see the numbers.