Speaking of Breeze I’m on a flight to Florida.
Currently at terminal 1 on a flight to ORD on a Breeze Airways plane and I’m telling you Terminal 1 could do better in matching terminal 2’s energy one thing is they can try to get more low cost carriers coming here and opening an operating base. 2. Expand the terminal runway our side has more space to expand then T2 has. 3. let this terminal also get international flights. T1 has to just be a busy as T2 if not busier.
T1 can really only expand to about 21 gates. That was also the plan going into Covid, but I think the plan for now is 13 gates. I do think they should extend that runway though. Not sure why they haven’t started the extension to 9,000 ft like they are supposed to.
They should really lean into the budget airline terminal at T1; hot dog/kebab carts, pancake house, 7-11 coffee, cup-o-noodles bar, etc
Give me the first Cookout in a airport
I’ll take either. I’m not picky. 
Char-Grill makes a better burg anyway. Cook Out’s open after midnight though.
N&O reports this morning that Hiberinia has opened a scaled down Raleigh Beer Garden pub in T1.
https://www.newsobserver.com/living/food-drink/article313755557.html
Get all those Southwest passengers drunk before their flights. What could go wrong? 
RDU to Guadalajara on Volaris starting June 10th.
I thought extending 5R/23L to 9000’ was one of the options considered but rejected in favor of building a new 5L/23R.
It was supposed to be both
I don’t have access to the calculations, but I assume a MTOW A321 headed for the west coast needs more than 7500 feet on a hot day with no wind. So, it’s not just the departing transatlantic flights that require 5L/23R. An alternative when 5L/23R is out of service would be nice. But those extra 1500 feet don’t come cheap.
Just for reference, the reason 5L/23R is going to be 10,639 feet is because that’s how much Alaska needs to be able to go to Seattle at MTOW during certain months of the year in a 737. Having a 7,500 foot runway really restricts loads if that’s the only one operating.
Yes, but the -900ER that Alaska would use is the scourge of airport operators. Let’s all put down more concrete just because (depending on how you look at it) Boeing got greedy, the airlines wouldn’t wait for the MAX 9, or Airbus has such a production backlog.
Either way, I believe a 9000’ secondary runway, is needed. It’s better for emergency landings or in the event of the primary runway being shut down, it allows for more flights to not be delayed, considering that’s a length some international widebodies should be able to take off from.
I don’t disagree, really. But I suspect that the ongoing deterioration of 5L/23R may have resequenced the construction schedule.
If the area keeps growing, a nonstop to Asia is inevitable in the next 10-20 years. And then they will have to go to the full 11,000 or 12,000 feet that they were aiming for in the early stages.
Charlotte will be gaining Middle East with a 10,000 foot runway… 10,639 is likely a good amount, but runs the risk in extreme conditions.