catocony

The original terminal at National should have been leveled after the new one opened 21 years ago. The circular design just doesn't work anymore, and it's going on 80 years old. I know that TWA and Northwest did a refurb back in the 90s, but it still looks and feels like the early 1960s in there.

I still remember being on one of the first inbound flights at the "new" terminal (coming home early) landing at Concourse C (US Airways) and everyone getting free ice cream - at 7:00 AM. That said, the original terminal is practically a museum, and United is a minor player at National. Since US Airways left *A, I''ve only been down there once for an Air Canada flight.

AndyPatterson

In all fairness, the original terminal still has the beautiful main lobby with the huge glass wall overlooking the runways, and just upstairs from that is a neat little museum of the history of aviation in DC, going back to the old Hoover Field, located near what is now the Pentagon, and staffed with two young runners with flags to block the traffic on the highway that crossed the runway, whenever a plane was landing or taking off!

Also, the street-side design of the original terminal owes some credit to FDR, who derided the original proposal (a plain-faced slab) and suggested that the modernistic columns could be inserted as they are today.

So, it is of architectural significance.

exerda

To be fair, even if today they decided to build a new midfield terminal, the approvals and designs and construction would likely extend more than 10 years.

On the other hand, we need to start that process now, not 10 years from now, which unfortunately is what will happen.

cova

What I have heard over the years:

1. Continental chose the current gates that UA uses at DC.. The reason being the direct pull in gates (as opposed to the others that get blocked by planes going in and out). It takes more time to use the other gates, hence CO/UA can do quicker turns. I much prefer the UA DCA gates. UA gave up its lounge and gates in Term B to consolidate operations in the CO area. AA was expanding and needed the gates (before the US merger).

2. The plan was to have regular gates in the original old terminal, however, the airline that used them would have to pay for the cost of maintenance of that old terminal building (which is more than other gates). Plus the old terminal building still has asbestos (as I understand it).

3. DCA is being expanded with a new terminal for CR/RJs at the other end - to be used mostly by AA to replace the buses at gate 35X. Also the entire Terminal B and C and new expansion will have one checkpoint so the concourse is inside security, . The checkpoints will be in new buildings being built between the elevated roadway and the Metro.

4. IAD is owned by the Government, and the Government is not going to invest unless UA makes a commitment and funds a good part of it. Hence as I understand there are no plans in the works to built new terminals for C and D. My understanding is UA has not committed for very long term.

catocony

The designs, environmental and other studies for a new midfield concourse at Dulles have been completed. That's why the AirTrain stop is where it is. The small building on top was meant to remain in place when the new terminal goes in on top of it. The plan is to build a new terminal that's like A/B except there won't be a dog trot in the middle of the A concourse for vehicles to go under. 44 or so gates. If/When built, they will flatten the existing C/D.

EricH

Those designs, environmental and other studies will be outdated by the time they get to building a new midfield concourse, so they'll have to be redone. Our tax dollars at waste.

halls120

Yes, it is. And the UC is not all that bad. But the gate areas are small and cramped, and pretty far away from everything.

UA management pretty much gives their collective middle finger to their DC area customers.

riphamilton

if amazon HQ2 comes to the area (nova was my initial frontrunner, but a recent WSJ article disagrees), i wonder if that would be significant enough to make MWAA/UA do something about C/D.

EWR764

The DCA lounge is one of the coolest in the system, with great runway views and historical significance. My one request is that the patio actually be converted to a usable outdoor space. That would be perfect. The gate areas themselves, not so good, but I understand rent in that section of the terminal is considerably lower and, as cova points out, those gates are operationally more favorable (no tow-in, short taxi either on arrival or departure). I work hard to minimize my time spent in the airport at DCA so I don't mind it, and the staff there are generally pretty good.

UA isn't going to fund a redevelopment of IAD C/D on its own, and MWAA has a great deal of capital tied up in ongoing projects (Journey at DCA, Silver Line to IAD), plus the debt associated with the Aerotrain. IAD C/D is next on the list, but I agree with those who foresee at least a 10-year horizon on that project. In the meantime, if UA can build out a Polaris Lounge and invest in some more cosmetic upgrades, the experience there becomes more acceptable. I don't view IAD C/D to be much worse than the ATL midfield concourses, especially B/D, and prefer it to CLT for connections.

It's ugly, but functional, and a few key improvements could hold it over until, at long last, MWAA and UA replace it. UA's recent revelation that IAD operates in the black (for now) is a shot in the arm for the prospects of a new C/D complex.

exerda

If the Pentagon JEDI contract (if it ever makes it through all the protests and challenges) goes to Amazon--as I expect it will--I would think that even without HQ2, there would be a "HQ2-lite" in NOVA. That's $10b in a single contract (and probably more--there will be all sorts of related contracts and efforts if DOD goes all AWS cloud). I hope that that sort of new business would add impetus to get C/D replaced. The tax revenues are already there; HQ2 and/or JEDI would just be gravy.

I wish the NOVA proposal for HQ2 had included concrete plans to improve IAD, though.

DCA writer

The banjo only dates to 1970, as you can read in this Greater Greater Washington recap by FlightGlobal's Edward Russell (check out its copy of a 1972 NW ad touting 3 flights a day to SEA!). MWAA has considered demolishing the banjo in the past, as you can see in the embedded tweet below, but now that it's been renovated and WN is running so many flights out of there, it's not going anywhere.

catocony

They will need to be refreshed but they won't start from scratch. Some infrastructure is already there, with the train station. In fact, the designs and studies included a very future E/F concourse that's another 500 yards or so beyond the train station and would integrate the control tower into that concourse.

seenitall

Yet not a nickel is spent on replacing IAD Terminal C/D.

sapguy

JimInOhio

According to UA's map, TATL from IAD:
Amsterdam
Barcelona
Brussels
Dublin
Edinburgh
Frankfurt
Geneva
Lisbon
London
Madrid
Munich
Paris
Rome
Tel Aviv
Zurich