Salt Lake International Airport Development Thread

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Comrade

If Utah wasn't so militant with its support for the second amendment, and in the back pocket of the NRA, I would love for 'em to go after Delta to make SLC their main hub after the mess going on with Georgia. Doubtful, though, as I could see the Utah legislature pulling the exact same stunt Georgia did after Delta did something on guns that was well within their right as a private corporation.

I had the same reaction as you. When Georgia pulled that shenanigan, I would've taken every Delta plane and had wheels up within 20 minutes. Take business to another city/state that wants it.

That said, I think Delta is at Hartsfield/Jackson because it gives them good access to international locations. SLC is a wee bit too far west, imo.

[At minimum, Delta should have put out an RFP to other cities. Call GA's bluff.]

[jubguy3]

Hartsfield-Jackson is an operational miracle. There is nowhere else that they could recreate that. They would need to find another city, in the Southeast no less, to pick up some of that capacity. Delta's biggest strength is that they operate much the same way Emirates does in regards to Atlanta; the volume being pushed through Atlanta makes up for any dips in load factors. That's why Delta is able to maintain a higher level of service and competitive prices while being profitable. They are never going to do anything impacting their operations in ATL. However, if they want to reduce their operations in Georgia over the tax bullshit, they have the option of moving their corporate headquarters to Minneapolis, the former NW headquarter state.

As time goes on, ATL will quite literally run out of space. I think as more people move west, the sensible option is for Delta to continue to expand their SLC operation. As they open up the door to modern facilities in SLC, they will be able to negotiate with the airport board much the same way that they do with Hartsfield-Jackson. They make a lot of money here, and they make us a lot of money. Barring any fundamental shifts in the airline industry and the continued lack of competition in SLC, I think we will start to see very impressive growth from Delta in SLC.

[San Diego-Honolulu]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Hartsfield-Jackson is an operational miracle. There is nowhere else that they could recreate that. They would need to find another city, in the Southeast no less, to pick up some of that capacity. Delta's biggest strength is that they operate much the same way Emirates does in regards to Atlanta; the volume being pushed through Atlanta makes up for any dips in load factors. That's why Delta is able to maintain a higher level of service and competitive prices while being profitable. They are never going to do anything impacting their operations in ATL. However, if they want to reduce their operations in Georgia over the tax bullshit, they have the option of moving their corporate headquarters to Minneapolis, the former NW headquarter state.

As time goes on, ATL will quite literally run out of space. I think as more people move west, the sensible option is for Delta to continue to expand their SLC operation. As they open up the door to modern facilities in SLC, they will be able to negotiate with the airport board much the same way that they do with Hartsfield-Jackson. They make a lot of money here, and they make us a lot of money. Barring any fundamental shifts in the airline industry and the continued lack of competition in SLC, I think we will start to see very impressive growth from Delta in SLC.

There is a master plan for the Atlanta airport to build a south terminal, as well as another runway even further south than their most recent one they built. After that, then ATL will be out of space.

I agree that once the new SLC terminal is complete around 2024, then Delta will expand even more. Back in the mid to late 2000's Delta dropped service from SLC to a ton of cities throughout the country. It's taken almost a decade for some of those routes to come back and some still have not returned. The ones that come to mind that have either returned or have been announced after being dropped are Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Tampa, Fort Lauderdale, Aspen, Raleigh, and Montrose. There are a few Delta routes that have yet to resume that were dropped but hopefully could return once the new terminal is complete. Those are Columbus, Edmonton, Santa Barbara, and Hartford. Then of course the ones that were dropped by Delta anywhere between 2004-2014 that will probably never return are...
Yuma
San Luis Obispo
Monterey (CA)
Eureka
El Paso
Durango (CO)
Cranbrook (BC)
Winnipeg
Birmingham
Fayetteville (AR)
Victoria (BC)
Memphis
Bakersfield
Mazatlan
Wichita
Lincoln
Springfield (MO)
Vernal
Bellingham
Yakima
Moab
Salem (OR)
Kona
Fairbanks

It'll be interesting to see once the new terminal is complete if any other airline other than Delta expands and grows in SLC. JetBlue tried expanding in SLC during the recession but that turned out to be a flop. They are in need of a larger west coast/western presence. Maybe once more gates are available with the new terminal another airline could try to establish a decent presence in SLC.

[i-215]

Anyone catch this nugget in the Deseret News article about the terminal redevelopment project?



https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...6-billion.html

That sure sounds to me like SLC Airport and Delta have their eyes on not just a fully-built northern concourse, but perhaps *many more* concourses to the north. Perhaps it's closer to reality than we all realize?

[gakidave]

Originally Posted by San Diego-Honolulu

There are a few Delta routes that have yet to resume that were dropped but hopefully could return once the new terminal is complete. Those are Columbus, Edmonton, Santa Barbara, and Hartford.

There are a few I think have an OK shot at returning. I fully expect to see Columbus come back, and perhaps Santa Barbara and Edmonton (if oil prices work their way back up). I have my doubts about Hartford - that's an extra hour of flying time past Cleveland for a market 20% smaller.

An analysis was done on the San Luis Obispo market several years ago showing it lost a fair amount of money when it was being run on a CR2. A CR7 may make it more feasible.

I think El Paso, Durango and Bakersfield are other markets that may be feasible. The demand for them isn't huge (El Paso being the biggest at about 35 pax/day O&D), but they all have a few things going in their favor.

I'm still apprehensive (but hopeful) for an Asia flight. There was a runway analysis done a few years back that showed some of the operational challenges of a flight to Asia. You can see starting in section 2-12 that most of the planes are moderately to severely weight-restricted. A 747-400 was the best performer, but that's obviously too much plane and they're going away anyway. The A332 (not analyzed here) to Tokyo went out weight-restricted. The 787 wasn't in production yet when this was put together, so I'd be curious to see updated numbers with it.

http://www.aerohabitat.eu/uploads/me...ALP_Report.pdf

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by gakidave

There are a few I think have an OK shot at returning. I fully expect to see Columbus come back, and perhaps Santa Barbara and Edmonton (if oil prices work their way back up). I have my doubts about Hartford - that's an extra hour of flying time past Cleveland for a market 20% smaller.

An analysis was done on the San Luis Obispo market several years ago showing it lost a fair amount of money when it was being run on a CR2. A CR7 may make it more feasible.

I think El Paso, Durango and Bakersfield are other markets that may be feasible. The demand for them isn't huge (El Paso being the biggest at about 35 pax/day O&D), but they all have a few things going in their favor.

I'm still apprehensive (but hopeful) for an Asia flight. There was a runway analysis done a few years back that showed some of the operational challenges of a flight to Asia. You can see starting in section 2-12 that most of the planes are moderately to severely weight-restricted. A 747-400 was the best performer, but that's obviously too much plane and they're going away anyway. The A332 (not analyzed here) to Tokyo went out weight-restricted. The 787 wasn't in production yet when this was put together, so I'd be curious to see updated numbers with it.

http://www.aerohabitat.eu/uploads/me...ALP_Report.pdf

For comparison, San Diego has a non-stop to Tokyo on the 787 Dreamliner. It's runway is only 9,400 feet long, with steep ascent and descent going in and out.

[jubguy3]

DEN-NRT and SLC-ICN are comparable in length (within 100mi of each other). UA flies DEN-NRT on their 787-8. Denver is at a higher altitude, and the 787-8 has a lower range and lower MTOW than the 787-9, which has an optimized landing gear and wing box that is shared with the 787-10.

Korean Air has 5 787-9 in their fleet right now and are taking delivery of the remaining 5 until the end of 2019. I imagine this would be a great aircraft for the route. It does have 6 first class seats, but because SLC is a Delta hub, it makes sense to place first class seats on a hub to hub route. The amount of first + business seats (both are 2-2-2 across) is comparable to the number of business class seats on KLM's 787s. The Korean Air have a total capacity of 267 seats. So there isn't too much concern that the KE 787 is too premium-heavy. I imagine that if the South Korean Transport Ministry approves the joint venture, KE and DL will strongly consider launching this route on the KE 787 because it is the smallest available aircraft that can fly the route without limitations.

It will be exciting to have another international carrier and another 787 if my predictions do come true. I don't think it would be likely for Virgin Atlantic or Air France to fly here in the future - KLM's arrival was a big development for SLC.

I wonder if KE could share the aircraft with another route off-season or for the remaining part of the week? I know that KLM's 787 used here flies to Minneapolis during the off-days and to Colombo, Sri Lanka during the off-season. I wonder if it would make sense to initially start with a conservative schedule and launch a short Asian route alongside SLC to maximise aircraft utilization.

[arkhitektor]

As I was waiting to pick some relatives up from the airport last night, I noticed this Shanghai flight listed on the board:



Have I missed something? Delta doesn't have regular service between SLC and Shanghai, does it?

[shakman]

It's the flight via LAX. Only the flight number continues to SLC. Continuing service to SLC has a change of equipment at LAX from a 77L to 738.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by shakman

It's the flight via LAX. Only the flight number continues to SLC. Continuing service to SLC has a change of equipment at LAX from a 77L to 738.

So why wouldn't it just be listed as a flight from LAX on the boards in SLC?

[jubguy3]

It's also listed as a flight to Shanghai because its categorized as a "direct fight" on the same flight number. Some examples of those kinds of flights in SLC are DL6 which is SLC-LAX-NRT, DL236 SLC-DTW-FCO, and SLC-ATL-MAD and SLC-JFK-FRA. So they will show up as those final destinations in addition to the intermediate stop.

For example, in the departures board there are actually 5 flights to Madrid listed, but it's because of a stupid technicality. One SLC-ATL-MAD flight shows up once, but the 11:15 am to Atlanta apparently has four Delta codeshares put on the flight which all continue through to Madrid, so there are four Madrid departures listed for 11:15 am. It's really a relic from the era of advertising one stop flights as a "direct flight" in that the flight number doesn't change.

On some airports departures websites (Especially those that are Star Alliance hubs), it will show like 10 airlines departing to the same place at the same time from the same gate. It's just because of the codeshares agreements that constitute "separate flights". The website is a dumb robot and it doesn't know the difference between the two.

[delts145]

Originally Posted by i-215

Anyone catch this nugget in the Deseret News article about the terminal redevelopment project?



https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...6-billion.html

That sure sounds to me like SLC Airport and Delta have their eyes on not just a fully-built northern concourse, but perhaps *many more* concourses to the north. Perhaps it's closer to reality than we all realize?

The predictions are that Salt Lake City/Wasatch Front will reach 5 million plus people in the not too distant future. Plans for that kind of future expansion would be a wise move.

.

[orlandopilot]

Originally Posted by delts145

The predictions are that Salt Lake City/Wasatch Front will reach 5 million plus people in the not too distant future. Plans for that kind of future expansion would be a wise move.

.

It is good that SLC has the room for future expansion but please don't become an ATL. ATL works but it is not a pleasant experience. ATL is too big. I know SLC isn't on track to become an ATL anytime soon but SLC would be in good shape if it were in the range of a DTW with 34 million passengers a year. I had a connection in DTW last month. I had not been through there in ages. It was an absolutely beautiful airport. It was busy but not unpleasant. I will move heaven and earth to avoid having a connection in Atlanta.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Originally Posted by delts145

The predictions are that Salt Lake City/Wasatch Front will reach 5 million plus people in the not too distant future. Plans for that kind of future expansion would be a wise move.

.

Let’s assume that a doubling population equates to a doubling of O/D passengers. Will the terminal be able to handle twice as many people? The baggage system is only being built to handle existing passenger counts, and they’ve stated it already won’t be big enough when it opens. So theoretically there would need to be twice as many carousels. Why did they not account for this or allow more room than they already have planned for expansion? If this airport is going to last for the next half century, why is the terminal being built only to handle near term capacity?

[jubguy3]

Delta is launching SLC-ELP (El Paso) for the fall 1x daily, it's currently loaded for OCT/NOV.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

Let’s assume that a doubling population equates to a doubling of O/D passengers. Will the terminal be able to handle twice as many people? The baggage system is only being built to handle existing passenger counts, and they’ve stated it already won’t be big enough when it opens. So theoretically there would need to be twice as many carousels. Why did they not account for this or allow more room than they already have planned for expansion? If this airport is going to last for the next half century, why is the terminal being built only to handle near term capacity?

I know this would turn us into ATL, but could SLC eventually build a second northerly terminal that accesses from 2100 North?

Like ATL, the underground people mover could go back and forth, connecting with all the gates along the way?

[billbillbillbill]

Feels like it's been a while since we have seen an update. Latest posted from the SLC Airport website from March 29th.


Bigger


Bigger

[jubguy3]

That would be my fault! I stopped checking the website because I forgot. Here are the most recent updates:

March 7, 2018

• Installed metal panels on the South Concourse-West exterior
• Completed the Central Utility Plant roofing
• Continued Terminal structural steel erection
• Poured concrete on levels 2, 3 and 4 of the Parking Garage

March 21, 2018

• Began installing conveyor belts in the Terminal Tunnel for the baggage handling system
• Completed structural steel erection for mid-concourse tunnel tie-in to South Concourse-West
• Continued shoring and pouring parking garage levels 2, 3, 4 and 5
• Averaged nearly 1,160 trade contractor staff onsite

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/Up...March-2018.jpg
Aerial 3/7/2018

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/Uploads/Picture10.jpg
Baggage handling system 3/21/2018

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...ch-29-2018.jpg
Elevated roadway 3/29/2018. More of the cladding is visible and IMO it is a really beautiful dark brown/red color, it is a lot darker than what was shown in the renderings.

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...March-2018.jpg
Elevated roadway 3/29/2018

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...March-2018.jpg
Elevated roadway girders 3/2018

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...March-2018.jpg
Elevated roadway girders 3/2018

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...March-2018.jpg
Elevated roadway girders 3/2018

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...March-2018.jpg
SCW Tunnel tie-in 3/2018. I wonder what the tunnel tie in will look like in the final phase. Will the tunnel be flush or will the building have a "stub" that sticks out into the apron?

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...march-2018.jpg
Terminal plaza 3/2018

https://www.slcairport.com/assets/cm...March-2018.jpg
Elevated roadway bents 3/2018



https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pd...a21Mar2018.pdf

Link to the most recent airport advisory board meeting on 21 Mar 2018.

Things of note: The project is 8 days late currently. NCW enabling construction isn't supposed to be complete until August, but steel erection has already begun at the NCW site. Passenger traffic for 2018 is forecast to reach 24.7 million PAX. Non-airline revenues increased significantly for 2018. The budget for the North Concourse expanded from 740m to 910m, which seems to indicate based on earlier articles that Delta is requesting significant upgrades to the N Concourse. I wonder if we will see a skylounge in the N Concourse? The SLCDA gave a presentation on the future 5th runway. They are either considering realigning 17/35 to match the 16/34 runways, or building a new runway to the west of 16R34L. It seemed to me like the runway to the west would require a lot of property acquisition and work to execute - I'm not sure why they couldn't move it north a few thousand feet and acquire less property / not have to deal with the I-80 / glide slope conflict. The SLCDA also gave a presentation on the concessions RFP and how they are preparing to request proposals from concessionaires.

[i-215]

Why do they even have runway 14/32? It's short and criss-crosses with the other runways. Couldn't they just rip that out and add a new long runway in between the two larger eastern ones?

[jubguy3]

14/32 is used for general aviation, It was there before the 16/34 pair and it was aligned differently because they didn't understand the wind pattern as well as they do now. At least that's my general understand. Their plan is to either realign 14/32 and 17/35 so they could have another 16/34 150"x12,000" runway, but I don't think the general aviation community wants that because they would lose "their runway" and the effective capacity of the airport would be reduced. General aviation would need to move to south valley or Tooele. A west 16/34 would allow for increased operations but it would require a lot of property acquisition to complete.

In my opinion? I don't think the runway should happen for at least 10-20 years. Dubai international handles 420,000 movements per year compared to our 330k and doesn't have the general aviation or military presence of SLC. 83 million people pass through dubai each year. SLC is projected to see a very small increase in operations as jets get upgauged and general aviation slowly moves elsewhere. I think they should plan for the runway now and let property owners prepare, but it isn't a necessity in any way.