FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Delta Air Lines | SkyMiles (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-air-lines-skymiles-665/)
-   -   Atlanta air traffic (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-air-lines-skymiles/1972534-atlanta-air-traffic.html)

Zorak Jun 4, 2019 10:03 am


Originally Posted by Janr (Post 31169217)
Just rode to E gates and saw several people almost fall. Of course, most of them looked like vacationers.

Train surfing is fun, but yeah, E<->F is the tricky part.

bgriff Jun 4, 2019 11:39 am


Originally Posted by ecaarch (Post 31169462)
The main portion of ATL was designed by an Atlanta architectural firm named Stephens & Wilkinson (now S&W Architects). Even 40 years on, it is a marvel of efficiency. The only (minor) change that would have made it better would have been wider concourses to accommodate moving walkways.

Look at all of the airport terminals around the world designed by big "name" architecture firms like Norman Foster & Associates or Richard Rogers Partnership/Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, etc (HKG, PEK, the never-built MEX, LHR T5). They are glamorous and glitzy, and they get a lot of press, especially in the design industry. But they don't work nearly as efficiently as ATL. Stephens & Wilkinson designed a giant factory for moving a LOT of people, and they totally succeeded.

And arguably maybe not even that ... ORD removed a bunch of moving sidewalks from the C concourse because they found that they clogged up traffic flow, particularly when there is a big crowd of people waiting to board on one side of the moving sidewalk and totally blocking through traffic on that side. And the flow of people along the concourses at ATL can often be so great that I could easily see moving sidewalks getting overwhelmed and creating congestion of people trying to flow onto them at the ends.

That said, wider concourses without moving sidewalks, to allow more walking space and/or bigger gate seating areas, might have been nice to have.

FlyBitcoin Jun 4, 2019 11:50 am


Originally Posted by bgriff (Post 31169991)
And arguably maybe not even that ... ORD removed a bunch of moving sidewalks from the C concourse because they found that they clogged up traffic flow, particularly when there is a big crowd of people waiting to board on one side of the moving sidewalk and totally blocking through traffic on that side. And the flow of people along the concourses at ATL can often be so great that I could easily see moving sidewalks getting overwhelmed and creating congestion of people trying to flow onto them at the ends.

That said, wider concourses without moving sidewalks, to allow more walking space and/or bigger gate seating areas, might have been nice to have.

Makes you wonder why they made D so narrow compared to T-A-B-C? In the early 1980's, the main tenants (DL and EA) split A,B, and C and all others were relegated to D
No connecting traffic flow in D?
Still, why not just build them all the same?

GlobeTrttr83 Jun 4, 2019 12:40 pm

A good site to peruse for “then & now” photos is here:
https://www.sunshineskies.com/atl-history.html

The footprint of the old hub and spoke terminal design is visible is some satellite images today on the north side of the field, where the Renaissance Hotel and Delta HQ campus are currently.

The 5 parallel runways were designed for the jet age in the late 1970s and this has served ATL well with managing and recovering from major weather delays, etc.

HDQDD Jun 4, 2019 1:13 pm


Originally Posted by GlobeTrttr83 (Post 31170211)
A good site to peruse for “then & now” photos is here:
https://www.sunshineskies.com/atl-history.html

The footprint of the old hub and spoke terminal design is visible is some satellite images today on the north side of the field, where the Renaissance Hotel and Delta HQ campus are currently.

The 5 parallel runways were designed for the jet age in the late 1970s and this has served ATL well with managing and recovering from major weather delays, etc.


Yeah, triple simultaneous ILS approaches was unheard of not so long ago. Still, I believe the only airports that can keep a high arrival rate (>90 AAR) even in Low IMC conditions are ATL, DFW, ORD (with the new alignment) and DEN, IAD aren't far behind.

TL;DR: ATL is in rare company with it's RWY capacity.

ecaarch Jun 4, 2019 2:07 pm


Originally Posted by FlyBitcoin (Post 31170037)
Makes you wonder why they made D so narrow compared to T-A-B-C? In the early 1980's, the main tenants (DL and EA) split A,B, and C and all others were relegated to D
No connecting traffic flow in D?
Still, why not just build them all the same?

A and the south end of B were built to DL's specs, C and the north end of B were built to EA's specs (Have you ever notice the change in level in B just south of the centerpoint? Or the Eastern tunnel shortcut from B to C and midway up the north half of the concourses.)

D was built for O&D traffic for everybody else. With the exception of the brief period when TW had a mini-hub at ATL, D never really had connecting traffic until DL expanded into the north half.

If D concourse was 5ft wider and it is roughly 1/4 mile long and construction costs were $300/sf (these are all WAGS), then you've increased construction costs by nearly $2m. Whatever the actual figures were in the late 70s when it was built, it would still have been a substantial extra cost.

FlyBitcoin Jun 4, 2019 3:04 pm


Originally Posted by ecaarch (Post 31170536)
A and the south end of B were built to DL's specs, C and the north end of B were built to EA's specs (Have you ever notice the change in level in B just south of the centerpoint? Or the Eastern tunnel shortcut from B to C and midway up the north half of the concourses.)

D was built for O&D traffic for everybody else. With the exception of the brief period when TW had a mini-hub at ATL, D never really had connecting traffic until DL expanded into the north half.

If D concourse was 5ft wider and it is roughly 1/4 mile long and construction costs were $300/sf (these are all WAGS), then you've increased construction costs by nearly $2m. Whatever the actual figures were in the late 70s when it was built, it would still have been a substantial extra cost.


Yeah, makes sense that ATL government needed to save some money and shrunk D to do it. It still looks funny on the satellite views since D is so much skinnier.

IIRC, I took TW from the old EA gates on the south side of C before ValuJet/AirTran took them over. This seems to confirm that TW was in C: https://apnews.com/ed7ece86eb982cec577f1393e2c1dcd3
I remember seeing 6 TW planes on the ground at the same time once when I took TW to MCO.
Kiwi was on D and they were a pretty useful choice for a little while

HDQDD Jun 4, 2019 3:19 pm


Originally Posted by ecaarch (Post 31170536)
A and the south end of B were built to DL's specs, C and the north end of B were built to EA's specs (Have you ever notice the change in level in B just south of the centerpoint? Or the Eastern tunnel shortcut from B to C and midway up the north half of the concourses.)

I've noticed the tunnel. You can still see the stairway (escalator?) leading to it on Google Maps or when taxiing on that ramp. I wonder if it's still there, or if they just filled the entrances in with concrete. I noticed on one side (C I think) there's an elevator where you would have gone down to presumably get to the tunnel.

ecaarch Jun 4, 2019 3:21 pm


Originally Posted by FlyBitcoin (Post 31170754)
IIRC, I took TW from the old EA gates on the south side of C before ValuJet/AirTran took them over. This seems to confirm that TW was in C: https://apnews.com/ed7ece86eb982cec577f1393e2c1dcd3
I remember seeing 6 TW planes on the ground at the same time once when I took TW to MCO.
Kiwi was on D and they were a pretty useful choice for a little while

I think that you are right about the TW gates - I def stand corrected.

SJC ORD LDR Jun 4, 2019 7:15 pm


Originally Posted by HDQDD (Post 31170808)
I've noticed the tunnel. You can still see the stairway (escalator?) leading to it on Google Maps or when taxiing on that ramp. I wonder if it's still there, or if they just filled the entrances in with concrete. I noticed on one side (C I think) there's an elevator where you would have gone down to presumably get to the tunnel.

I remember using that shortcut when the northern end of C was all ASA EMB120s and I would need to connect in the northern half of B. That tunnel made for a nice little shortcut. I wonder why they got rid of it?

Fly_Delta_Jets Jun 4, 2019 8:44 pm


Originally Posted by HDQDD (Post 31170808)
I've noticed the tunnel. You can still see the stairway (escalator?) leading to it on Google Maps or when taxiing on that ramp. I wonder if it's still there, or if they just filled the entrances in with concrete. I noticed on one side (C I think) there's an elevator where you would have gone down to presumably get to the tunnel.

Still there - used for a baggage belt between the B/C bag rooms. The moving sidewalk (going one way) is still in there too.

FlyBitcoin Jun 4, 2019 8:52 pm


Originally Posted by SJC ORD LDR (Post 31171379)
I remember using that shortcut when the northern end of C was all ASA EMB120s and I would need to connect in the northern half of B. That tunnel made for a nice little shortcut. I wonder why they got rid of it?

Here is an old FT thread on the B to C walkway
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delt...r-b-c-atl.html

The next best thing now is the walk from E to F. Very peaceful with the painted glass.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...51837294c6.jpg
E to F walkway at ATL

JKPFlyer Jun 5, 2019 8:40 am

someone with a better memory can probably correct this, but I always remember at one end of one terminal (on Eastern) having to walk out to the plane and takes stairs up to the planes. However, I don't remember taking stairs down to the airfield.

MikeyZBT Jun 5, 2019 1:22 pm


Originally Posted by fotographer (Post 31168584)
As ATL is my home airport.. I too can say they do a great job..and of course the best part is that most of AA flights are out of the T gates.. which of course mean no "plane train"

Also in Atlanta, but am surprised to see that AA is your preferred airline. Why is that coming from ATL? Don't you have trouble with frequency, etc.? I'd love to fly multiple airlines, but Delta sort of forces us to fly them, you know?

JesseRohr Jun 5, 2019 2:01 pm


Originally Posted by FlyBitcoin (Post 31167713)
And it might not be there in its current form if Birmingham did not "fumble" it away...
https://www.cbs42.com/news/cbs-42-in...lta/1180005047

As a resident of Birmingham I still see constant negligence in decisions like that. The guard here simply does not want this city to grow even today.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:16 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.