Denver International Airport Expansion & Transit Hub

[Octavian]

I'm going to link to the high resolution renderings DenverInfill obtained of this project. Because that's what all we denver posters do.









More here:
http://denverinfill.com/blog/2012/02...#comment-35070

[bunt_q]

You know, the more I look at this the more it reminds me of that odd indoor/outdoor covered plaza thing you go through between the trains and the airport terminal in Munich. Very similar setup, I think.

[SnyderBock]

Here is an excellent video, showing some of the best renderings of the South Terminal Expansion and EMU rail station:

• Video Link

[Octavian]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Here is an excellent video, showing some of the best renderings of the South Terminal Expansion and EMU rail station:

Video Link

This is a very nice find. Looks like it will be officially released in 10 days or so at the airports conference in Denver. The first draft uses a different, earlier rendering.

[SnyderBock]

Here's a rundown of the conversation about this very topic:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Being in the center of the US is not a good thing when it comes to international travel. A coastal location is far more favorable for connection reasons - nobody has to backtrack.

Southwest and Frontier having hubs in Denver also does not help. The competition is driving yields down and is putting pressure on United, which is Denvers best and pretty much only bet for new international service. Although I think I did hear something about ANA flying to DEN (from Tokyo) with the 787, which wouldn't surprise me since ANA is a Star Alliance partner of United.

So Denver will never be a big international gateway, which is a shame because of how modern and efficient it is. But it will remain a big player for the domestic market.

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

If you live in California, you have to backtrack to get to Denver in order to fly transpacific. If you live in Illinois, you have to backtrack to Denver in order to fly transatlantic. All of the major airlines have hubs on each coast. So westbound United would route them through SFO, eastbound United would route them through EWR. Denver is also not in a good position for South American flights either. That just leaves DEN as a domestic hub with few international routes.

Phoenix and Salt Lake City are in a similar situation.

I'm not bashing DEN or anything, just thought it was funny they were advertising DEN as being strategically located.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You're putting lipstick on a pig. DIA's international offerings suck, plain and simple. Whether international route demand will outstrip available supply at coastal airports in 50 years, forcing airlines to DIA, is purely a matter of speculation. Personally, I think coastal airports will find a way to make it work long before they cede the intercontinental flights. Pretty sure Los Angeles will drop a daily flight or two to Spokane, Reno, or Tulsa long before they pass on Shanghai. Make the Fargo crowd fly through Denver, keep Beijing in San Fran; that's what I'd do if I was United.

Originally Posted by Octavian

I mostly agree with this, but I'd point out that AIRLINES make route decisions, not airports, and that they do so on the basis of dollars and cents, not prestige. Cities like NY and Los Angeles will always have plenty of international flights because of their strong O&D traffic, but there is an opportunity for Denver and other airports with lots of capacity to steal passengers than in the past might have connected through LA or NY on their way to Europe or Asia. The 787, a smaller, longer distance airplane makes the economics possible. Those flights Los Angeles drops and Denver takes to Spokane, Reno and Tulsa can help give Denver the volume to support more international flights.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

The only way I see Denver growing as an international hub is by connecting Asia-bound flights from the east coast or Europe-bound flights from the west coast. Perhaps, Latin American-bound Flights would make sense when connecting from the Pacific Northwest but, I don't see DFW, Houston, Atlanta, or Orlando having the same growth constrictions as LAX, SFO, or JFK. Still, this seems likely only if or when the current coastal hubs reach capacity or expand and pass on too much of the cost of expansion to the airlines.

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I think when most of us here are referring to international destinations, we really mean excluding North America. Any second tier airport can get flights to Canada or Mexico. We're (or at least I) referring to long haul international flights. Currently, Denver only has 2 of those - London and Frankfurt.

Really the only new potential long haul international destinations are Tokyo and Dubai.

Tokyo is probably going to happen relatively soon when ANA get their hands on some more 787s. ANA is a Star Alliance member along with United so the connections will be there on both ends for the route to work.

Dubai is a long shot but Emirates has a gigantic backlog of widebody aircraft that they have to send somewhere. So maybe by 2020.

Anything more than those 2 would likely depend on United building up Denver more, which has about no chance of happening since they are getting killed by Southwest and Frontier. I actually suspect the opposite will happen, with United moving capacity from DEN to newly acquired IAH to escape the LCC bloodbath.

In the last ~6 months, airlines have announced/started non-stop international service to/from Denver International Airport to Iceland, Dominican Republic and now Japan. Denver to Jamaica-Montego Bay, is very likely to begin at some point, via Frontier Airlines, as well.

So, if we exclude all the Canadian (United serves Canada heavily from Denver) and Mexico (Frontier serves Mexico heavily from Denver), would Iceland, Japan, Dominican Republic and possibly Jamaica all count? The article below also mentions Denver companies pushing for non-stop service to Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi. Existing International non-stops from Denver also include Costa Rica, London and Frankfurt.

No, Denver International isn't likely to ever be a major International hub. But this is some rapid expansion into International service, after a decade of nothing. This is definitely positive.

[SnyderBock]

United Airlines will begin daily nonstop service from Denver International Airport to Tokyo's Narita International Airport in early spring next year, ending more than a decade of Denver efforts to land the route.

Pending government approval, the flight from Tokyo begins March 31 , and the flight from Denver begins April 1 using the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner, United chief executive Jeff Smisek announced Tuesday...

...United is flying the route without public subsidies, which city officials have offered other carriers.

Late last year, city officials offered ANA a financial incentive package of about $1.5 million in marketing funds and roughly $600,000 in waived landing fees over two years.

Though no incentives are involved, United has been working with DIA and city officials on restructuring its financial situation at the Denver hub.

The Denver City Council on Monday approved an amendment to United's lease at DIA that gives the airline a $22 million annual savings in return for United increasing its business...

...Arrow Electronics' headquarters move last year to the Denver area was seen as boosting efforts by DIA and the city to attract nonstop flights to Asia, since 18 percent of the company's revenues in 2011 were in Asia.

"As a global company, we have employees located around the world, including Asia," said Arrow spokesman John Hourigan . "Ready access to our global customers and suppliers is key to our business, and direct flights to Tokyo is an exciting development."

Arrow isn't the only Colorado company that wants more nonstop international service from DIA. Western Union has said it would like direct flights to Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

DIA already has nonstop flights to the United Kingdom, Germany and Iceland. Other international destinations include Mexico, Costa Rica and Canada. Tokyo is the top Asian destination from Denver...

Read more: United Airlines to begin direct Denver-to-Tokyo flight
The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/breakingne...#ixzz1ve5WdedT

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

...Anything more than those 2 would likely depend on United building up Denver more, which has about no chance of happening since they are getting killed by Southwest and Frontier. I actually suspect the opposite will happen, with United moving capacity from DEN to newly acquired IAH to escape the LCC bloodbath.

Here's some news regarding United Airlines and their future at Denver:

Denver council OKs United Airlines cost cuts at DIA despite objections from Southwest, Frontier
Denver Business Journal by Ed Sealover, Reporter
Date: Monday, May 21, 2012, 9:12pm MDT - Last Modified: Monday, May 21, 2012, 11:41pm MDT

The Denver City Council voted unanimously Monday night to lower the cost of United Airlines operating at Denver International Airport , despite protests from competitor airlines, as long as the airline increases its business at DIA over the next four years...

...United -- a unit of Chicago-based United Continental Holdings Inc. (NYSE: UAL) -- reduced the passenger capacity on its flights 10 percent near the end of 2011 and indicated it needed to reduce its roughly $150 million annual lease with DIA as well.

So, city officials worked out a deal under which United's lease payments would fall by $22 million a year on the condition that it grows its total available seat miles flown from DIA 4.5 percent by 2016.
If not, it must pay $100 million back to the airport.
The deal, which involved DIA using unallocated cash balances to pay off about $100 million in debt for the airport's baggage system and for unused space in the basement of the United-dominated Concourse B, also benefits all other airlines at the facility.

Frontier's lease payments will drop by about $2 million per year and Southwest's by about $1 million annually because of the reduction of debt, Ackerman said...

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/ne...es.html?page=2

And from the Denver Post:

Denver International Airport, United Airlines reach deal on debt
By Ann Schrader
The Denver Post

All of Denver International Airport's airlines will save money on their leases and the airport will pay off some of its debt through a proposed deal with United Airlines. Presented today to a Denver City Council committee, the agreement calls on DIA to pay off about $100 million in debt associated with unused and unneeded space for the original baggage system on Concourse B and maintenance space on Concourse A.

In return, United — the largest carrier at DIA with a 41 percent domestic market share — could save up to $22 million a year if service benchmarks are met. Currently, United pays up to $151 million a year on its DIA lease, which includes payment on the baggage space.

"United is committed to success in Denver, but it must be cost effective for us to operate," United said in a statement. "We worked together with Denver International Airport's leadership team to address our cost structure at DIA, and this proposal helps to narrow this cost disparity compared to our peers."
The next-largest carriers — Southwest and Frontier — will save $1 million a year and $2 million, respectively.

John Ackerman , DIA's chief commercial officer, said that under the agreement, United must level off a capacity cutback at DIA that began several years ago and accelerated to a 10 percent reduction in the fourth quarter 2011 from the fourth quarter 2010. United must grow capacity 4 ½ percent and maintain that level through 2016 to receive the maximum benefit.

The money that DIA will use to pay off the baggage system-related debt will come from the federal $4.50 passenger facility charge . The money is used to pay for Federal Aviation Administration-approved projects. DIA gets $1.50 of each $4.50 fee.
Aviation manager Kim Day said it is hoped the agreement "will result in growth at DIA" for United. The airport must continually look for ways to reduce costs for the airlines, she said, "or frankly, they will pack up their airplanes and go somewhere else."
With the merger between United and Continental airlines, there has been concern about the future of its Denver hub. The airline maintains a continuing commitment to its hubs that existed prior to the merger.

"We weren't as concerned about them leaving us as a hub as we were concerned about losing out to Houston and Chicago," said Patrick Heck, DIA's chief financial officer. "We want to make Denver as attractive as possible," which means lowering the cost of doing business. DIA has a total debt of $4.1 billion, with the bulk scheduled to be paid off in 2025 .


Read more: Denver International Airport, United Airlines reach deal on debt - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/business/c...#ixzz1vjWLYnF4
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

[ardecila]

nvm

[Kngkyle]

DEN's management team seemed to share my earlier opinions, and took action to make sure that United has good reason to stick through it, at least until 2016. I'm surprised they are flying the Tokyo route instead of ANA, but regardless I was still right in Tokyo becoming a new destination.

The flights to Central American countries are purely leisure routes that are flown with narrowbodies, for a city of Denver's size and might, those routes aren't anything special. Iceland is interesting, but ultimately nothing to really show off, it's only 3x weekly on a narrowbody aircraft to a almost entirely leisure destination.

The feathers in Denver's cap are Tokyo, London, and Frankfurt. I don't see Hong Kong as a possibility, but one of the rapidly expanding gulf carriers isn't that far out. (Emirates, Qatar Airways, or Etihad)

Props to the airport management team for being proactive.

[SnyderBock]

It's interesting, the United non-stop to Tokyo flight was announce only weeks after the new deal was struck to reduce United Airlines annual lease of ~$150 million by $22 million, if United increased flights at DEN by 4.5% between now and 2016. Whats even more interesting, is United did this without negotiating the same economic benefits that were being offered to ANA.

It's almost as though United wanted to be the one offering the service, not ANA (it's star alliance partner) and all United wanted before offering it, was reduced lease costs.

The executives at United indicated they wanted DEN to remain a a primary hub, but they just needed the costs to go down. Those extra costs are primarily related to the automated baggage system that United insisted on being installed when the airport was constructed, which ultimately failed to perform up to standards.

Since then, automated baggage system have evolved (thanks to next generation systems being used in Asia). DIA is in a 1st phase of expansion (adding the South Terminal expansion) but which will also expand the concourses and construct a new 2nd generation automated baggage system before 2020, in the 2nd phase of expansions.

I think United will prove to be more committed to Denver than even Houston. DEN was United's 2nd largest hub, prior to the merger with Continental and they definitely have more incentive to expand there now.

It's probably not a coincidence that this Tokyo service was announced just weeks after this restructured, incentives laced deal, was announced.

[Wizened Variations]

The pictures are glamorous. The video uniformative.

A couple of reality oriented thoughts:


A) What roll will video conferencing have on the need to airport hop? I have worked in an industry that collectively is spending tens of billions per year to let people work in multiple video conference calls between continents. What advantages- other than for the ego of upper corporate management- would sending my sales, or technical staff personnel to stay at DIA have, when sites are dispersed throughout the Front Range?

B) What industry, other than high value to weight value added manufacturing, would need to have any storage adjacent to airport freight terminals? What advantage would Denver have over other airports? Why should such high valued manufactured items be stored anywhere away from 'just in time' manufacturing facilities in China, Europe, or in other parts of the US? What cost advantages would a business user of high value low weight items have, cost wise, over storing such items near DIA, and, getting such items shipped via FedEx?

C) Other than using the line to Lodo, why would someone not have to rent a car to travel to ski areas and the other natural wonders of Colorado? Would a middle level executive want to have to take the DIA train to Lodo, walk blocks underground, wait for the appropriate light rail train, board a Southeast line train, exit at a station, and walk a 1000 feet to an appointment in an office in the Tech Center? Would the completion of the I-225 line make any difference to a time conscious, high value business customer?*

Like almost all of the entire RTD and, now, DIA buildout, the project only profits downtown and the tax coffers of the city and county of Denver.

Other than for 'bragging' rights, this development, IMO, has little benefit for the 4,000,000 + people that live along the Front Range.**

Sure looks snazzy though.

*Except for the line to downtown the RTD buildout is useless to a time conscious business traveller.

**Most of the employment growth, IMO, other than for construction, will involve taking jobs from one part of the metro area and moving them to DIA. Kind of like the Stockshow issue, but on a massive scale. In addition, what would the cost advantages be to an established Denver business to pay more for using new facilities whose work force, most likely, would have a longer commute to work?

[llamaorama]

Maybe people who live in Denver and are using the airport, or people who work there?

[Wizened Variations]

Consider from the standpoint of being a client business (not from the standpoint of the real estate developers, construction contractors, etc)

A) What would my business be willing to pay extra for storing items at DIA next to air freight? What would my demand be for such storage in terms of a cost-benefit analysis between point of manufacture and use in the Denver CMSA?

Many US companies use the Kinko-Fedex connection for shipping high value items. Lower priced items per pound can be shipped via trucks. Low priced, non-critical items can be shipped by rail.

B) What are the advantages and the additional costs involved for my sending technical and/or sales personnel to stay at or very near DIA, in terms of their servicing customers throughout the CMSA? What time advantages do members of my team have by staying at or near DIA versus renting a car and staying at a hotel/motel near I-25 or I-70? Do I force local clients to VISIT team members at or near DIA or do I have personnel take a rent a car and visit them? What percentages of such trips can be handled from the home office (or the employee's residence for that matter) in lieu of physically sending them to Denver?

C) As an upper management person, would I want to stay at or near Denver for meetings etc., that I could handle via increasingly sophisticated web video conferencing? How much could I rationalize I or my managerial staff using DIA as a hub for a working vacation? Is staying at DIA critical for me or my staff to see Colorado (why not stay in Aspen, Avon, Breckenridge and use video conferencing from there?)?

D) If my team is in Colorado, and thinking about staying at DIA, to service multiple clients in the Denver CMSA what advantages are there to not renting a car? Is the time-value cost of money saved by not renting a car spent due to the terrible inefficientcies of traveling anywhere except to Lodo (when the DIA line is complete)?

Now, if the movers and shakers wanted to make a real improvement, IMO, they would run a freight rail line due south from the BNSF line, and, T it into the DIA rail line, and keep it running due south to the UP line. Tie that line into an intermodal yard. This would permit bulk air freight to seemlessly merge with high value air freight and even container shipping.

But, to believe that DIA alone could become a major destination without cost effective means to move business personnel about Metro Denver given the requirement for a rent-a-car in the vast majority of cases, IMO, this is little more than a property development scheme, indirectly or directly financed with public money via boarding fees and other hidden taxes.

[SnyderBock]

Wizened Variations' true colors come out. Anti-mass transit agenda propaganda pusher. Obviously with some kind of vested interest, in the freight rail industry. It's almost hypocritical, but it's not. There is a niche of people who are big freight rail advocates, yet very auto-oriented and against passenger rail mass transit.

[mhays]

Wizened is arguing against what has already proven to work.

I don't like the idea of airport-related industry or office parks next to DIA because that would be sprawl (or maybe at least a cohesive node), but it is an attractive idea to a lot of businesses. A lot of offices want to be able to send salesmen or service people around the country at a moment's notice, or produce things that they want to be able to ship in a shorter time and more reliably without risking traffic, etc. Likewise, incoming visitors and/or materials might be a priority.

Airport rail lines are a major convenience for inbound tourists and business travelers, outbound travelers, and airport workers. It's especially useful given the huge taxi fares.

The idea that business travelers and tourists all want cars is overstated. Many do, but many don't. Downtown hotels (not sure about Denver) will often have a fraction of the parking spaces vs. their room count.

Teleconferencing might cut back on conventions and business travel, or even personal travel. But we haven't seen that yet.

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Wizened Variations' true colors come out. Anti-mass transit agenda propaganda pusher. Obviously with some kind of vested interest, in the freight rail industry. It's almost hypocritical, but it's not. There is a niche of people who are big freight rail advocates, yet very auto-oriented and against passenger rail mass transit.

I like systems that work, sir. And I have personally ridden the best in the world. Many times.

I am against poor design, and corruption. I hate property developement that will cause my grandchildren pain.

Examples of great transportation design:

Korea- go to Seoul sometime and ride their subway,

Go to Tokyo, Nagoya, or Osaka and see the 'city' without having to rent a car

Fly into Frankfurt and see what an INTEGRATED facility actually is.

No, I am for WELL DESIGNED public transportation systems, not 'politik' driven 1950 level built systems.

No, sir, use the best in the world as the standard...

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by mhays

Wizened is arguing against what has already proven to work.

I don't like the idea of airport-related industry or office parks next to DIA because that would be sprawl (or maybe at least a cohesive node), but it is an attractive idea to a lot of businesses. A lot of offices want to be able to send salesmen or service people around the country at a moment's notice, or produce things that they want to be able to ship in a shorter time and more reliably without risking traffic, etc. Likewise, incoming visitors and/or materials might be a priority.

Airport rail lines are a major convenience for inbound tourists and business travelers, outbound travelers, and airport workers. It's especially useful given the huge taxi fares.

The idea that business travelers and tourists all want cars is overstated. Many do, but many don't. Downtown hotels (not sure about Denver) will often have a fraction of the parking spaces vs. their room count.

Teleconferencing might cut back on conventions and business travel, or even personal travel. But we haven't seen that yet.

Run a business sometime. Not one of those huge corporations whose profits are determined in signficant part by city, county, state, and, federal lobbying, but one that works with seeking the lowest priced solutions while providing excellent customer service 'honestly.'

Send an employee on a business trip, as the owner (or part owner) of a business.

Order priority shipped parts by air (you will go through Fedex and Kinko if you have any frequency of shipment) intrastate or international.

Imagine yourself coming to Denver on a business trip, with the DIA to Lodo line complete, and you are spending your 'own' money. Provide yourself an intinerary where you are to see clients (and/or suppliers) scattered throughout the metro area. Go to Google maps and see how Denver is laid out, cross coorelate that with door to door trip times.

This is not a romantic issue, where one looks at the architecture and goes "Gee" but a practical issue concerning the time-value-cost of my money versus how much time I spend.

[SnyderBock]

Wizened, my apology for ruffling your feathers a little. Do you not think the DIA South Terminal expansion is well designed for it's budget constraints? DIA did want to spend $650 million on this project, but the airlines fought hard to get the budget scaled back to $500 million. I almost like it better, than the pure Calatrava version. An extra $150 million, for Calatrava signature features, doesn't seem cost effective to me.

How would you have liked the DIA South Terminal expansion design, to have turned out?

[Wizened Variations]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Wizened, my apology for ruffling your feathers a little. Do you not think the DIA South Terminal expansion is well designed for it's budget constraints? DIA did want to spend $650 million on this project, but the airlines fought hard to get the budget scaled back to $500 million. I almost like it better, than the pure Calatrava version. An extra $150 million, for Calatrava signature features, doesn't seem cost effective to me.

How would you have liked the DIA South Terminal expansion design, to have turned out?

Taking the terminal only, I do like what is being done.

Of course, the rail interface should be (have been) better thought out, with more opportunity for future access from the north. This could have been provided by a rail line connecting the BNSF line to the north with UP line along I-70 to the south, which would enable trains to access the terminal (and associated businesses) via conventional freight line. In addition, rather than a stub terminal (why do Denverites build so many of these horribly inefficient things?) the station should have been built as one side of a continuous loop, which would have permitted approaches from other direcitons to be made easily in the future and, made the rail station far more efficient (handle a far larger number of trains).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Wizened Variations

Run a business sometime. Not one of those huge corporations whose profits are determined in signficant part by city, county, state, and, federal lobbying, but one that works with seeking the lowest priced solutions while providing excellent customer service 'honestly.'

Be more successful, than you won't have to.

Send an employee on a business trip, as the owner (or part owner) of a business.

Order priority shipped parts by air (you will go through Fedex and Kinko if you have any frequency of shipment) intrastate or international.

Another operational cost.

Imagine yourself coming to Denver on a business trip, with the DIA to Lodo line complete, and you are spending your 'own' money. Provide yourself an intinerary where you are to see clients (and/or suppliers) scattered throughout the metro area. Go to Google maps and see how Denver is laid out, cross coorelate that with door to door trip times.

Wait, so you're bitching about a business trip that has multiple visits at your destination at multiple locations? Just how should businesses that are located in the suburbs, to seek lower operating costs, benefit from the East Line? They shouldn't. It's the trade-off of being located in the suburbs, your transportation costs are going to be a greater portion of your operational costs.

I don't give two shits about the traveling salesman, the cost of dedicated transportation is a necessary cost of doing business for them and no transit system in the world will provide the efficiency and ease of access they need for visiting multiple clients.

This is not a romantic issue, where one looks at the architecture and goes "Gee" but a practical issue concerning the time-value-cost of my money versus how much time I spend.

Yes, and unless you're seeking the lowest cost possible regardless of time or are located within the city center, this option does not make sense to you. However, you know where the system is going, if you wanted to make use of it, you could consider a site relocation.