Stapleton was also coded as DEN when it existed. DIA took the DEN code with it, as Stapleton was officially closed, locked up, and the runways demolished almost before the paint dried at DIA.

It was part of the agreement with the Park Hill and Montview residents near Stapleton - they wanted no possible way for Stapleton to rise from the grave ala a Love Field.

Therefore, the DEN code was available for the new airport.

I think they still have the route and I too would love to see the LHR flight return. You know that the BA flight out of SEA is the #1 BA flight for profit in their system... and has been for 5 years or so? Loads rarely dip below 92% (as far as I have heard). Well I think it's time that they have a little competition, there is definatly a market for it, especially since Air France seems to have pulled out of their "new route to seattle".

I do like DIA with the exception of the piece of human garbage named Patrick Ahlmstrom who is the FSD there for the TSA.

However, I and my companies have had to pay thousands of dollars more over the years to use DIA over Stapleton's rates. As a student, I saw my fares rise by at least $100 as soon as DIA opened its doors.

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?

Are you sure about this? SEA is more profitable than LOS, HKG, JFK, LAX, JNB, etc.?

I'm not well versed in the specifics of B2 (perhaps others, like ConcordeBoy, can provide more details), but as I understand it UA currently cannot operate DEN-LHR.

Timothy,

Please keep our secret to ourselves. We would not want a mass exodus here from parts all over. We should also keep a secret that we also get around 300 days of sunshine a year as well.

RD

I concur with Tigger!

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

I agree. Shhhhh... we have enough Michigan, California and Texas fugitives.

The long taxi is evident if you are taking off directly East or West, but when using the North/South interior runways, gate to runway in two or three minutes.

Space = efficiency

For me,

potential weather problems and an old obsolete airport = inefficiency

If space is the major problem then we do have it good at DIA.

From Saturday's Rocky Mountain News article on the ten great myths surrounding DIA, I present...

"Myth 7: Tight quarters

Opponents circulated a rumor that DIA's runways were being built too close together. This has a kernel of truth buried deeply within it.

DIA was to be the world's first airport to allow triple simultaneous landings in bad weather, and the runways were spaced to allow just that.

But the Federal Aviation Administration forgot one thing: Denver's mile-high air affects airplane speeds. Planes come in faster, which requires even more room between runways so they can maneuver in an emergency.

To compensate for the oversight, the FAA developed and installed special final-approach radar at DIA. On its opening day, in a storm, DIA hosted the first-ever three-at-once low-visibility landing. "

The complete article is here.

I remember that one. Was okay getting to the airport, on my morning 777 to SEA (*wax nostalgic*). At first we were expected to be empty, so my upgrade request to Business was promptly processed, but as the snow kept coming, she became not only the first plane going to SEA that day, but also the last plane, so they loaded her to the gills. Don't know how catering managed to load her for a full flight at the last minute, but they did. It was my first time in Business on a 777 and I have never sat anywhere else on one, since.

Aviation Planning Article (scroll down to March 7th)

"

• We pointed out that the city's own 1988 EIS found that the old Stapleton could be expanded to handle over 72 million passengers annually - double the number going through DIA today. And at a fraction of the cost, too. A couple of big contributions to Pena's election fund, and voila! nobody could find a copy of that EIS.
  
• We pointed out the jive studies the city paid for to spin the new airport. Like the "distinguished global consulting firm" that churned out the report that stated Denver by 1993 at the latest would need an airport to handle over 50 weekly trans-Atlantic nonstops per week, including the huge demand that would pop up like a Jack In The Box to places like Madrid and Brussels. Our analyses said this was nothing more than a sunshine report. Today, twelve years later, DIA has nonstops to Frankfurt and London only - and the city had to pay big incentives to get them.
  
• We correctly forecast that Denver would lose one of its hubbing carriers - probably Continental - because of the high costs of DIA. Right on. The president of Continental at the time noted the extra $50 million in annual costs DIA would inflict on his carrier. Poof! Gone with the hub. And that took the only trans-Atlantic service - London - with it. It was at least four years and hundreds of thousands in incentive dough to get British Airways to enter the Denver-London market..

I agree, I wish I wouldn't have to go through ORD or DIA. I really don't care much for LH. It'd be nice to see some UA metal go to either FRA, MUC or LHR.