Construction begins on new Salt Lake City airport (http://news.yahoo.com/construction-begins-salt-lake-city-205318992.html)

I miss Utah.

Ahh ok, so it's actually a completely new terminal at the current airport, that replaces the existing facilities. Not a completely new airport. The media strikes again :rolleyes:

At any rate, this will be welcome news I'm sure for current travelers, the current terminals are saturated from what I gather because of Delta/Delta Connection's expansion of service.

Wichita is in the middle of a large terminal renovation. That was one of the worst around.

Anyone else catch that they are actually REDUCING their gate count? Seems odd.

Anyone else catch that they are actually REDUCING their gate count? Seems odd.

If they have a lot sitting empty then it makes sense to eliminate the added cost. SLC isn't exactly exploding with growth.

No, it just seems odd to spend that much on an airport that's stagnant, if not decreasing.

This is what OKC should have done instead of the Frankenstein approach of bolting new stuff to old crap. BTW - Denver wasn't the last airport to do this. Jacksonville rebuilt the airport here in the last 10 years.

No, it just seems odd to spend that much on an airport that's stagnant, if not decreasing.

Facilities get dated and eventually need to be replaced. It also seems many of the gates being losts are ground level boarding gates and not those with jetbridges.


This is what OKC should have done instead of the Frankenstein approach of bolting new stuff to old crap. BTW - Denver wasn't the last airport to do this. Jacksonville rebuilt the airport here in the last 10 years.

You can't compare Denver to either the SLC, JAX, or even the OKC project. DEN was a completely new air field - not a rebuild on the existing Stapleton property which is now a subdivision.

I just meant that Denver was not the last city to replace its terminals (even it did so by building another airfield), like the author claimed.

I just meant that Denver was not the last city to replace its terminals (even it did so by building another airfield), like the author claimed.

I think what gets things thrown off is when a terminal replacement is refereed to as replacing an airport. While many passengers just think of an airport as being defined as the facilities they actually use, the rest of us understand the difference. Though most news writers are terrible when it comes to handling specifics and aviation. LOL

^Which is why I said "The media strikes again" haha.

Just FYI for anyone wondering why an airport that had .41% growth last year is replacing its terminals, SLC handled just over 20 million passengers last year but the current terminals/concourses are built for about half that number. So yeah a full-on expansion is overdue.

I just meant that Denver was not the last city to replace its terminals (even it did so by building another airfield), like the author claimed.

OKC did replace their terminal, Kerry. This is the one I started flying from when I was young. :wink:

8734

Are there any renderings available beyond the 4 they posted in the article?

JAX didn't rebuild the airport, they replaced terminals on site. Much like Salt Lake. I flew through JAX several times at various stages of the construction. It was much needed because the place sucked terribly. But that's the distinction. Denver built a whole new airport like OKC did back in the 60s. Now SLC is doing what most cities do, which is build a new terminal on site.

OKC also isn't "slapping something on" like you would say JTF. The east concourse was in the masterplan form the beginning. That's why there's a wall at the end of that gate in the way that it is rather than a rounded gate hub. It's always been the plan to extend the concourse out just like the west end is. I'm having a hard time getting the old masterplan map because stupid google is saturated with the current construction map. But somewhere in all those plans from the late 90s is the east concourse, which is a mirror of the west one. it was planned to be built as traffic demands deemed it necessary. So for once, they actually planned smartly for the future. That way it wasn't just slapped on haphazardly like to many airports do....O'Hare.

JAX didn't rebuild the airport, they replaced terminals on site. Much like Salt Lake. I flew through JAX several times at various stages of the construction. It was much needed because the place sucked terribly. But that's the distinction. Denver built a whole new airport like OKC did back in the 60s. Now SLC is doing what most cities do, which is build a new terminal on site.

OKC also isn't "slapping something on" like you would say JTF. The east concourse was in the masterplan form the beginning. That's why there's a wall at the end of that gate in the way that it is rather than a rounded gate hub. It's always been the plan to extend the concourse out just like the west end is. I'm having a hard time getting the old masterplan map because stupid google is saturated with the current construction map. But somewhere in all those plans from the late 90s is the east concourse, which is a mirror of the west one. it was planned to be built as traffic demands deemed it necessary. So for once, they actually planned smartly for the future. That way it wasn't just slapped on haphazardly like to many airports do....O'Hare.

Im sure he was talking about the front part of the terminal that contains security check points, baggage claim, and ticket counters. That is the original structure with cosmetic upgrades.

I got why they didn't replace this. It would have been a lot more expensive and this was pre-9/11 where all the extra security wasn't needed.

Im sure he was talking about the front part of the terminal that contains security check points, baggage claim, and ticket counters. That is the original structure with cosmetic upgrades.

Exactly. If covering the walls with a new material is building a new terminal, then I just rebuilt my house because I painted the walls. I went through WRWA earlier this year and I can't tell you how disappointing WRWA was. There are so many things wrong and most of them are structural. The most glaring is the curvature of the terminal itself. It curves the wrong way. It was built to provide a view of Oklahoma landscape but it should have been built so people could find amenities that are always just out of site because of the curvature. Of course, when it was first built amenities weren't as important as they are today. There is no way to fix that but to tear it down.

^The original main terminal was actually extended north on the landside by 30 feet (ok, not much but it was extended).

If you remember the old terminal, the new main terminal is miles different from the old one. In the old one, there was a narrow corridor that connected the two concourses (B and C) and had low ceilings, was kind of dark and often got crowded. Each concourse had a separate security checkpoint. Once you passed through security in either concourse, you could not get out unless you were willing to pass through security again. And that's where most of the restaurants/amenities were back then - outside security.

The ceiling is higher, it's bright and airy. Gotta respectfully disagree though about the curvature. DFW, MCI (Kansas City Int'l), AUS and many other airports have terminals with similar curvature and passengers there do not seem to have any problems finding concessions. At DFW only 1/3rd of each terminal's concessions/restaurants is visible at any given location, but then that's why they have a terminal map/directory placed at every few gates (as does WRA). WRA is not perfect by any means but it's way better than most airports its size.

JAX didn't rebuild the airport, they replaced terminals on site. Much like Salt Lake. I flew through JAX several times at various stages of the construction. It was much needed because the place sucked terribly. But that's the distinction. Denver built a whole new airport like OKC did back in the 60s. Now SLC is doing what most cities do, which is build a new terminal on site.

OKC also isn't "slapping something on" like you would say JTF. The east concourse was in the masterplan form the beginning. That's why there's a wall at the end of that gate in the way that it is rather than a rounded gate hub. It's always been the plan to extend the concourse out just like the west end is. I'm having a hard time getting the old masterplan map because stupid google is saturated with the current construction map. But somewhere in all those plans from the late 90s is the east concourse, which is a mirror of the west one. it was planned to be built as traffic demands deemed it necessary. So for once, they actually planned smartly for the future. That way it wasn't just slapped on haphazardly like to many airports do....O'Hare.


Actually, the "guts" of the terminal building are the same. The bagroom is the exact same size, and with the expansion of the new checked baggage system, there will be areas in the bagroom where we can now only pull 2 carts of bags through. 2 carts of bags is about 60 bags. When you have about 150 bags coming off a large mainline flight, you routinely need 4-6 carts. So, if you don't like how long your inbound bags take to be delivered, due to the new checked baggage system taking up a huge amount of room in the original sized bagroom, just wait until we can only pull 2 carts through. We likely won't have the additional staffing to bring in 2 more people to drive separate tugs and carts just for this reason.

The entire airport sucks from an operational design standpoint, and it has gotten worse with the new baggage system.

Also worth mentioning, the tug routes in the terminal will now be one way. If you are dropping bags off on Belt 6 from a United flight, we will now be driving all the way to the end of the bagroom (Gate 24) to make the loop back around. A 1960's sized bagroom, upgrading the baggage system to accommodate more bag capacity, while significantly reducing the efficiency of getting the bags to/from the planes in a timely manner. Makes a ton of sense. They should have actually replaced the terminal building structure, instead of just putting glass up. Yes the concourse is new build, but the terminal (Gates 14-24 and the counter space) is the exact same building it was in 1960's.

^Thanks for the insight, obviously they did not focus on making it easier for you guys who do all the behind-the-scenes work as they did for us passengers. Hopefully the administration realizes the operations standpoint is needing serious attention, from what you have said the past few months (lines needing to be repainted, inadequate space, and now this) they haven't been doing so. And I don't get the one-way tug ops either.

^Thanks for the insight, obviously they did not focus on making it easier for you guys who do all the behind-the-scenes work as they did for us passengers.

That's the thing...it does affect passengers. I've heard some grumbling we may move to 45 minute checkin cutoff, instead of 30. To make sure bags make it all the way through the sort system with enough time to make it out for the final close out of the flight. (Which is about 10 mins before departure)

Gotta respectfully disagree though about the curvature. DFW, MCI (Kansas City Int'l), AUS and many other airports have terminals with similar curvature and passengers there do not seem to have any problems finding concessions. At DFW only 1/3rd of each terminal's concessions/restaurants is visible at any given location, but then that's why they have a terminal map/directory placed at every few gates (as does WRA). WRA is not perfect by any means but it's way better than most airports its size.


Have you noticed that new airports don't have that convex curve. They all try to maximize sight lines.

^Thanks for the insight, obviously they did not focus on making it easier for you guys who do all the behind-the-scenes work as they did for us passengers. Hopefully the administration realizes the operations standpoint is needing serious attention, from what you have said the past few months (lines needing to be repainted, inadequate space, and now this) they haven't been doing so. And I don't get the one-way tug ops either.

The one-way tug routes will be inside of the terminal building. The new checked baggage system will be so large that areas that are wide enough to get two-way traffic, will now barely be able to get one-way traffic (2 carts due to smaller turn radii - right now you can get 4-5 carts behind you and turn without taking out the side of the building)

I can't say that I think curvature really matters that much, but I would agree that it's not common. I don't have any study information to back it up or anything, but I would guess that it has more to do with how the concourses connect together to make the amount of room available for plane traffic between them be as large as possible. A curve causes a change in how that's done. In WRWA's case, since they maintained that old part of the building and just gussied it up a bit (so the place could stay open during the remodel), there really wasn't anything to do. They would not have been able to tear it down without causing a MASSIVE disruption for all parties (up and downstairs).

But as for making the concessions visible, I don't think it has any impact at all. Especially when the eateries are concentrated in one area like they are. There's a food court with a restaurant across the hall. Then down on the other concourse, you've got a few shops here and there. If you're discussing visibility, look at how DFW's newest terminal is designed. Places like TGIF face the inside of a wall. Papadeaux's is underground for goodness sake (at the end of a freaking long escalator). Just like at a mall, you look at the map and then find where you're going. WRWA isn't even big enough to need a map. You walk the whole thing in less than 5 minutes so if you can't find the concessions, I think you've got a much larger problem.....O'Hare, it is not.

And if you ever flew out of WRWA (or even picked someone up) before that remodel, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that said the old one was better. If you're wondering, check out TUL because their concourses are basically the same low metallic ceiling WRWA (and every other 60s/70's airport) had. Bleh!

Have you noticed that new airports don't have that convex curve. They all try to maximize sight lines.

You are right, the trend since the late '90s has been toward linear terminals, as in the case of Shanghai, Detroit etc. My guess is back when our terminal was built, that was the design trend and if we were to go completely linear, of course that would require a complete tear-down and rebuild, for which the right time was when the project first began. That would have also raised the cost well beyond the $110 million that was spent. As bombermwc mentioned however, from a passenger perspective finding what you want is not really a big deal at WRA since the terminal is small (I've walked the entire terminal twice in 20 minutes at a leisurely pace while waiting for a flight).

The old structure was built for a different time of air travel. They didn't have to take things like food service into consideration because you ate on the plane. The curve was built to provide a sweeping view of Oklahoma landscape, not for the comfort and conveniences of the traveler. Obviously airport officials know the benefits of linear terminals because the new wing is linear and they were quoted as saying how it improved visual sightlines to gate numbers, food service, bathrooms, and retail outlets. Using its small size to compensate for its outdate design isn't really a good argument to me because you don't have to be big to act big (I work in an industry that thrives on the 'fake it til you make it' philosophy). Anyhow, the curvature is but one example out of many and like several have pointed out, the time to fix it should have been back during the initial project but that plane has already left the gate and OKC wasn't on it.

The question now is, does OKC keep spending money bolting new stuff on to an old design or does WRWA become a MAPS IV project and get rebuilt from the ground up?

On edit, maybe that is a question for another thread as I just remembered this thread is about Salt Lake City's airport. Sorry for the detour. :)

Well they're about spend several hundred million on an expansion that completes the arc (It is not symmetrical as it stands now), and adds an east concourse stub.

Here's a photo showing how the eastern half of the terminal building is not symmetrical to the western half. It is one "bay" short.

http://i.gyazo.com/f03eb8aece97c69001ce8665804253fc.png

so the curved part is all part of the original terminal?

Pretty much, except for the westernmost addition to the curved part.

Something that the curve does do is allow for a third terminal to jet out (pardon the pun) from it and even Y off if we want. The curve would actually allow for an increased gate access space compared to if it were straight....depending on how it's configured. And of course a Y doesn't mean anything with either straight or curved. The west terminal can't expand westward anywhere because of the angled runway. East could even add a north/south element in the future for gate expansion.

All of that to say, should WRWA ever need to expand again, we have room to do it without it seeming to feel "slapped on" like so many airports.