New Runway Opens At United's Den Hub

[Cosmo]

Denver just announced that today it opened the longest runway in North America, its new runway 16R/34L which is 16,000 feet long and 200 feet wide. The main purpose of the runway is to allow MTOW summertime nonstops to Europe and the Orient despite DEN's "hot and high" conditions.

The new runway will further expand DEN's capacity, especially in bad weather. Perhaps now we'll see United add nonstops from DEN to FRA, NRT and GRU. B) At least the first flight to use the runway was a United 777, but it was only going to ORD.

Here's the press release from the Denver airport.

 

[Busdrvr]

"Perhaps now we'll see United add nonstops from DEN to FRA,"

Prior to 911, UAL flew DEN-FRA. Unfortunately, the City of Denver is the proud owner of a very expensive political boondoggle, and in an effort to stay afloat, simply charges too much in landing fees, fuel costs, and Taxes on MX to make DEN a legitimate international hub. I think someone needs to explain the concept of marginal revenue to them.

 

[iflyjetz]

"Perhaps now we'll see United add nonstops from DEN to FRA,"

Prior to 911, UAL flew DEN-FRA. Unfortunately, the City of Denver is the proud owner of a very expensive political boondoggle, and in an effort to stay afloat, simply charges too much in landing fees, fuel costs, and Taxes on MX to make DEN a legitimate international hub. I think someone needs to explain the concept of marginal revenue to them.

Let's hope that Hickenlooper (Den's new mayor) can turn things around.

I consider this a first good step: http://archives.californiaaviation.org/air...t/msg26922.html
Hickenlooper got my seal of approval after Boyd said that Hickenlooper made a mistake by dismissing Baumgartner.

 

[Busdrvr]

Jetz, thanks for the link. i didn't realize you were up on DIA. Baumgartner sealed his own fate with the FP Denver Post "letter" picture. had he not pulled that stunt, he'd still have a job. i'd hope any "comprehensive agreement" with UAL includes a more sophisticated landing fee's equation than $3.10 per 1000lbs. Something that encourages LARGER jets, not punishes them. I also think DIA would be wise to wave ALL fees for at least all intrastate traffic (and possibly "regional traffic" from UT, WY, KS, NM). Doing so would be a major blow to SWA's plans in COS. If SWA comes to the Springs, FRNT and low fare service at DIA (plus DIA's financial solvency) will be toast. DIA needs to establish itself as THE airport in the region. As for the relationship with UAL, the city needs to come to terms with the fact that it can not support two hub and spoke carriers, and while "UAL may a Essobe, but they are OUR essobe." A vibrant, profitable UAL with an incentive to fly internationally, is GOOD for DIA. Intel, HP, Compac, Oracle, and all the other high tech companies on the front range didn't put facilities there because of the "great weather" or "cheap fares to mexico".

 

[ual06]

Can't help but wonder about Performance on First and Second Segment Climb at high Density Altitude. Anyone have any numbers for the long haul aircraft? Also limits on tires. Max taxi distance and max rotation speed? 16R is a long way out there. Will it work? Is 16000 ft useable?

 

[Busdrvr]

Can't help but wonder about Performance on First and Second Segment Climb at high Density Altitude. Anyone have any numbers for the long haul aircraft? Also limits on tires. Max taxi distance and max rotation speed? 16R is a long way out there. Will it work? Is 16000 ft useable?

BA fly's 777's (RR powered?) out of Den, and as stated, we used to fly 777's to FRA. were we wieght restricted before? maybe that's why LH seems to be able to continue the route when we (with lower costs) can't figure it out. They flew an A340 and recently went to a 400

 

[ua767fo]

Non pilots , the following is really boring stuff, skip this postinng:

First segment climb, T/O through gear retraction while attaining V2 by 35 feet agl with a failed engine, is generally never limiting. Improved climbs can generally negate or lessen second segment performance. That being 35-400ft agl, engine inop, climbing at V2 with a climb gradient (2 engine aircraft) of 2.4%. This is ALWAYS the limiting factor of the 4 segments for 2 engine turbojets.

The idea of the Improved climb takeoff being to attain 'extra' kinetic energy before takeoff, and in the event of an engine failure, be able to turn this kinetic energy into potential energy. In other words trade speed for altitude, allowing the climb gradient to be met.

Limiting factors are accelerate-stop distance, brake energy for reject, and tire limit speed to name a few. Several airlines have operated the 727 for example with high speed tires, for high altitude operations. Whether or not they are needed or even available for modern Boeing aircraft I do not know.

Taxi distance to a runway is generally not a factor, but certain airplanes have taxi distance limitation due to brake heating. The 727 is one. Taxi distance is also figured into runway data on certain large aircraft due to diminished stopping capability due to taxi heat absorbsion.


Its been a while since I was really up on performance, hopefully everything I said is correct.

DENVER, CO