CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN UPDATE: PHASE 1
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
FEBRUARY 2016
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 – INVENTORY
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
1.3.5
1.3.6
1.3.7
1.3.8
Introduction ........................................................................ 1-1
Methodology ....................................................................... 1-1
Support Facilities ................................................................. 1-5
Airline Support & Maintenance ................................................... 1-5
Cargo ................................................................................... 1-11
General Aviation .................................................................... 1-11
ARFF .................................................................................... 1-17
Airport Support ..................................................................... 1-18
Catering ............................................................................... 1-25
Government .......................................................................... 1-25
Other Support Facilities .......................................................... 1-26
CHAPTER 2 – REQUIREMENTS
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
2.3.7
2.3.8
2.4
Introduction ........................................................................ 2-1
Methodology ....................................................................... 2-2
Support Facilities ................................................................. 2-2
Airline Support & Maintenance ................................................... 2-2
Cargo ..................................................................................... 2-5
General Aviation .................................................................... 2-16
ARFF .................................................................................... 2-18
Airport Support ..................................................................... 2-19
Catering ............................................................................... 2-20
Government .......................................................................... 2-21
Other ................................................................................... 2-22
Summary ......................................................................... 2-22
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Table of Contents
Page i
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS,
FINAL
Continued
PAGE
CHAPTER 3 – ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.4.4
3.4.5
3.4.6
3.5
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.6
3.6.1
3.6.2
3.6.3
3.6.4
3.6.5
3.6.6
3.6.7
Introduction ........................................................................ 3-1
Support Facilities Land Use ................................................... 3-1
Alternatives Study Area (Level 1) ........................................... 3-2
Alternatives Study Area Breakouts ............................................. 3-2
Alternative Support Facility Layouts (Level 2) ........................ 3-15
Airline Maintenance & Support Alternatives................................
Cargo Alternatives .................................................................
General Aviation Alternatives ...................................................
Airport Support Alternatives ....................................................
Catering Alternatives ..............................................................
Government Alternatives ........................................................
3-15
3-16
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-18
Alternatives Screening and Evaluation (Level 3) ..................... 3-29
Integrated Alternative A ......................................................... 3-29
Integrated Alternative B ......................................................... 3-30
Selection of the Preferred Alternative and Refinements ........... 3-37
Refinement of Support Facility Requirements .............................
Facility Reallocation................................................................
Facility Phasing .....................................................................
Consideration of Other Support Facilities ...................................
Consideration of Emergency Services........................................
Refinement of Facility Layouts .................................................
ALP Refinements....................................................................
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
3-38
3-38
3-38
3-38
3-39
3-39
3-40
Table of Contents
Page ii
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
Table 2-6
Table 2-7
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
2-8
2-9
2-10
2-11
2-12
2-13
3-1
3-2
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Airline Support Facilities ....................................................... 1-5
Airline Maintenance Facilities................................................. 1-6
Cargo Facilities ................................................................. 1-11
General Aviation Facilities ................................................... 1-12
ARFF Facilities................................................................... 1-17
Airport Support Facilities .................................................... 1-18
Catering Facilities .............................................................. 1-25
Government Facilities ........................................................ 1-25
Other Facilities .................................................................. 1-26
Airline Support Facility Requirements ..................................... 2-3
Airline Maintenance Facility Requirements ............................... 2-4
Cargo Facility Requirements.................................................. 2-7
CLT Cargo Tonnage Forecast ................................................. 2-9
‘In Kind’ Cargo Facility Requirements
Scenario-Assumptions ........................................................ 2-11
‘In Kind’ Cargo Facility Requirements ................................... 2-12
‘Best Practices’ Cargo Facility Requirements
Scenario-Assumptions ........................................................ 2-14
‘Best Practices’ Cargo Facility Requirements .......................... 2-15
General Aviation Hangar and Tenant Requirements ................ 2-17
General Aviation (FBO) Facility Requirements ........................ 2-17
Airport Support Facility Requirements .................................. 2-19
Catering Facility Requirements ............................................ 2-20
Overall Support Facility Requirements .................................. 2-23
Level 3 Alternatives Compatibility Matrix .............................. 3-31
Level 3 Alternatives Integration Matrix ................................. 3-32
Table of Contents
Page iii
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
LIST OF EXHIBITS
PAGE
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
1-1
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
1-6
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-12
1-13
1-14
1-15
1-16
1-17
1-18
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-12
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-16
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-20
3-21
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Existing Support Facilities ..................................................... 1-3
Airline Support Facilities ....................................................... 1-7
Airline Maintenance Facilities (1 of 2) ..................................... 1-8
Airline Maintenance Facilities (2 of 2) ..................................... 1-9
Cargo Facilities ................................................................. 1-13
General Aviation Facilities (1 of 2) ....................................... 1-14
General Aviation Facilities (2 of 2) ....................................... 1-15
ARFF Facilities (1 of 2) ....................................................... 1-19
ARFF Facilities (2 of 2) ....................................................... 1-20
Airport Support Facilities (1 of 3) ......................................... 1-21
Airport Support Facilities (2 of 3) ......................................... 1-22
Airport Support Facilities (3 of 3) ......................................... 1-23
Fuel Farm Facilities ............................................................ 1-24
Catering Facilities .............................................................. 1-27
Government Facilities (1 of 3) ............................................. 1-28
Government Facilities (2 of 3) ............................................. 1-29
Government Facilities (3 of 3) ............................................. 1-30
Other Support Facilities ...................................................... 1-31
Existing Support Facilities Land Use ....................................... 3-7
Future Alternatives Study Areas ............................................ 3-8
Airline Maintenance & Support Development Areas................... 3-9
Cargo Development Areas .................................................. 3-10
General Aviation Development Areas .................................... 3-11
Airport Support Development Areas ..................................... 3-12
Catering Development Areas ............................................... 3-13
CMPD Development Areas .................................................. 3-14
Initial Airline Maintenance and Support Alternatives ............... 3-21
Initial Cargo Alternatives .................................................... 3-22
Initial General Aviation Alternatives ..................................... 3-23
Initial Airport Support Alternatives ....................................... 3-24
Initial Catering Alternatives ................................................ 3-25
Initial Government Alternatives – CMPD ............................... 3-26
Initial Government Alternatives – NCANG ............................. 3-27
Integrated Alternative A Land Use ....................................... 3-33
Integrated Alternative A Layout ........................................... 3-34
Integrated Alternative B Land Use ....................................... 3-35
Integrated Alternative B Layout ........................................... 3-36
Preferred Integrated Alternative Land Use............................. 3-41
Preferred Integrated Alternative Layout ................................ 3-42
Table of Contents
Page iv
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
INTRODUCTION
Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT) serves as one of the six busiest
airports in U.S. CLT saw considerable growth in the 1960s and 1970s, with
terminal expansions and airfield improvements. Over the past ten years, CLT has
become one of the fastest growing airports in the world.
At such a high
acceleration of growth, it is important to continually assess, not only the terminal
and airfield, but also the support facilities at CLT.
In the Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan (ACEP) for CLT, the terminal and airfield
were assessed according to forecasted growth expected through the year 2033.
In an effort to supplement the ACEP, this analysis identifies Airport Support
facilities, evaluates the facility requirements, and assesses alternatives related to
facilities located in the support areas on Airport property.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Introduction
Page 1
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Introduction
Page 2
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
CHAPTER ONE
INVENTORY
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Support facilities include any facilities that provide services contributing to the
functional operation of an airport. Support facilities can be comprised of landside
and/or airside uses.
Prior to the Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan (ACEP), The Overall Master Plan
prepared in 20101, was developed by the Airport to assess gaps and solutions for
landside support facilities at CLT. This study looked at parking and rental car
facilities, roadway expansion, terminal expansion, and the People Mover/Bus Stop
Master Plan at the Airport. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, only the airside
support facilities will be evaluated.
The CLT support facilities are predominantly located on the north, south, and
eastern portions of Airport property. The north side of the Airport contains airport
administration facilities, as well as, many landside support facilities studied in The
Overall Master Plan. On the south side of the Airport between Runway 18C/36C
and Runway 18L/36R, are the majority of the cargo, Airline Maintenance/Support,
Airport Support, and Catering facilities. Lastly, the east side of the Airport, located
between Runway 18L/36R and Billy Graham Parkway, is comprised of GA facilities
and Government facilities related to the North Carolina Air National Guard
(NCANG).
1.2
METHODOLOGY
The objective of this chapter is to provide an inventory of the existing support
facilities at CLT. The support facilities are categorized based upon their role at the
Airport and whom they support. The classification of each support facility is color
coded and further illustrated in Exhibit 1-1, Existing Support Facilities.
The classifications used for this analysis are further described in both text and
tabular form throughout Chapter 2.
The support facilities classifications are based on the following facility uses:
1

Airline
Support: Includes
any
buildings
associated
with
airline
administration, training facilities, miscellaneous airline support facilities,
Ground Service Equipment (GSE) storage, and GSE maintenance.

Airline Maintenance: Includes airline hangars, maintenance shops, and
administration buildings associated with airline maintenance.

Cargo: Includes any facilities associated
operations, administration, and airmail.
with
airfreight,
warehouse/
Report prepared for the Airport by TWG, LS3P, and the HNTB Corporation.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-1
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL

General Aviation (GA): Includes facilities that support aviation not
considered commercial or military.
This involves facilities that support
single-engine aircraft, turboprops, business jets, and helicopters.
GA provides several aviation functions such as flight training, recreation
flying, business, agriculture, etc.

Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF): Includes facilities that support
the response, hazmat mitigation, evacuation, and possible rescue of
passengers and crew of an aircraft. All ARFF facilities must meet FAA
Part 139, Subpart D requirements, which are further described in
Section 1.3.4, ARFF.

Airport Support: Includes any facilities owned and operated by the Airport
that support airport operations.
Such facilities typically include airport
maintenance, administration, transportation, vehicle maintenance, and
fueling, aircraft deicing, and waste management facilities, etc.

Catering: Includes facilities that support flight-catering operations.
These operations supply commercial/charter flights with food, beverages,
snacks, aircraft waste disposal, and similar services.

Government: Includes government facilities located on the Airfield
Operations Area (AOA). More specifically, the North Carolina Air National
Guard occupies most of the governmental buildings on the AOA.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) and Civil Air Patrol
also have facilities on the AOA.

Other: Includes facilities used for other purposes. An aviation museum,
Carolinas Aviation Museum, (made up of two facilities) is located on the
Airport, which contains historic commercial, civil, and military aircraft
exhibits. The exhibits are open to the general public.
Support facility information was collected through research of historical
documentation, and confirmed through site visits and airport/tenant interviews.
Each table in Section 1.3, Support Facilities, depicts building information by
classification with the following details:




2
Facility
Facility
Facility
Year of
Number
Description
and Apron Areas in square feet (sq. ft.)2
Construction
Not all facilities utilize apron areas.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-2
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-1
EXISTING SUPPORT FACILITIES
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-3
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-4
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
1.3
FINAL
SUPPORT FACILITIES
1.3.1
AIRLINE SUPPORT & MAINTENANCE
1.3.1.1
Airline Support
There are nine Airline Support facilities, totaling over 430,000 square feet. All but
one of the Airline Support facilities at CLT are centrally located on the south side of
the airfield between Runways 18L/36R and 18C/36C. American Airlines (AA) has a
mail sort facility (Building 117) located north of existing Concourse A. A list of the
Airline Support facilities is provided in Table 1-1, Airline Support Facilities.
Table 1-1
AIRLINE SUPPORT FACILITIES
FACILITY NO.
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
117
202
203
204
205
AA MAIL SORT FACILITY
AA TRAINING FACILITY
AA STOCK DISTRIBUTION CENTER
AA PUMP HOUSE
AA FLUID STORAGE FACILITY
DELTA USPS
(MULTI_USE AIRLINE SUPPORT)
AIRLINE SUPPORT
GSE (AA)
AIRLINE SUPPORT
212
214
216
231
Source:
BUILDING
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
APRON
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
YEAR
6,255
152,800
153,182
4,447
3,072
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1986
1988
1987
1988
1989
29,495
N/A
1966
11,425
54,797
15,061
N/A
N/A
N/A
1981
1991
1986-88
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
AA occupies the majority of the Airline Support facilities at CLT (Buildings 117, 202,
203, 204, 205, and 216). These include a mail sort facility, training facility,
distribution center, pump house, GSE maintenance building, and other storage
facilities.
Other Airline Support facilities include a multi-use support facility
(Building 212) serving as office space for Republic Air, Mesa Airlines, Duty Free
America (non-airline tenant), and Prime Flight. Exhibit 1-2, Airline Support
Facilities, shows the Airline Support facilities at the Airport.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-5
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
1.3.1.2
FINAL
Airline Maintenance
There are currently seven Airline Maintenance facilities, totaling over
1.5 million square feet, located at CLT. The combined apron area of these facilities
is approximately 660,000 square feet. AA utilizes most of these facilities. Three of
the seven facilities were built in the late 1980’s while two maintenance shops were
built in the 1960’s, and two were built less than 10 years ago. A list of the Airline
Maintenance facilities is provided in Table 1-2, Airline Maintenance Facilities.
Table 1-2
AIRLINE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
FACILITY NO.
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
BUILDING
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
APRON
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
YEAR
200
201
211
244
245
247
256
AA HEAVY MAINTENANCE HANGAR
LINE MAINTENANCE HANGAR
MAINTENANCE
MACHINE SHOP
LINE MAINTENANCE BUILDING
PSA HANGAR
AA MAINTENANCE STORAGE
404,846
57,871
10,800
136,243
2,282
35,228
3,356
535,469
73,047
N/A
N/A
N/A
52,055
N/A
1988
1989
1968
1962
1989
2009
2013
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Six of the seven facilities are located on the south side of the airfield, between
Runways 18C/36C and 18L/36R. AA has a machine shop (Building 244) located
northeast of the Runway 18L RPZ. Exhibits 1-3 and 1-4, Airline Maintenance
Facilities, show the Airline Maintenance facilities at the Airport.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-6
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-2
AIRLINE SUPPORT FACILITIES
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-7
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-3
AIRLINE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES (1 of 2)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-8
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-4
AIRLINE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES (2 of 2)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-9
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-10
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
1.3.2
FINAL
CARGO
The majority of the Cargo facilities are scattered on the south side of the airfield,
located south of Runway 5/23 between Runway 18L/36R and 18C/36C.
The majority of the Cargo tonnage is handled by all-freighter operations. There are
eight Cargo facilities in total, which occupy approximately 335,000 square feet of
usable Cargo facility space with an approximate apron area of almost 1.2 million
square feet. There are a number of Cargo facilities currently being used by other
tenants that fall under other support facility categories. These facilities were
accounted for in their respective utilization categories within the inventory.
A detailed list of the Cargo facilities at CLT is provided in Table 1-3, Cargo
Facilities.
Table 1-3
CARGO FACILITIES
FACILITY
NO.
210
215
218
220
222
223
226
228
Source:
FACILITY
DESCRIPTION
FEDEX
FEDEX
AA CARGO
USPS
UPS CARGO
UNITED AIR CARGO
DHL CARGO FACILITY
CARGO BUILDING 7
BUILDING AREA
(SQ. FT.)
APRON AREA
(SQ. FT.)
YEAR
28,300
14,390
85,157
53,946
16,316
21,900
80,531
34,930
81,707
47,573
269,887
N/A
143,680
65,276
197,333
382,721
1980
1979
1987
1986
1995
1997
2006
2002
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
The predominant Cargo operators are UPS and FedEx, which serve the freighter
Cargo market. DHL has a small ground operation out of CLT as well. Belly Cargo is
also conducted at CLT with predominant carriers including AA, United, and Delta.
The oldest Cargo facility was constructed in the late 1970’s (Building 215), while
the newest (Building 226, DHL Cargo) was constructed in 2006. A depiction of the
Cargo facilities is shown on Exhibit 1-5, Cargo Facilities.
1.3.3
GENERAL AVIATION
The GA facilities at CLT are located along the eastside of Runway 18L/36R on two
campuses: a north GA campus and a south GA campus. GA is split into two
categories: corporate GA and Fixed Base Operator (FBO) facilities. The GA facilities
total approximately 657,000 square feet serving both small and large business
corporate clients, GA aircraft, and FBO services. The total apron area for all GA
operations is over 1.4 million square feet. A list of the GA facilities is provided in
Table 1-4, General Aviation Facilities. Some GA hangars have shared apron
space as reflected in the table.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-11
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 1-4
GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES
1
FACILITY
NO.
FACILITY
DESCRIPTION
301
302
302
302
307
308
316
317
318
327
335/306
310
311
312
313
314
315
319
323
324
325
326
331
336
337
338
DUKE ENERGY CORPORATE HANGAR
CORPORATE HANGAR (BLDG #1)
CORPORATE HANGAR (BLDG #2)
CORPORATE HANGAR (BLDG #3)
GENERAL AVIATION HANGAR
TAPS HANGAR/WILSON NORTH
SONIC CORPORATE HANGAR
SPANGLER HANGAR
WILSON AIR HANGAR
GROUP HANGAR III
CMC HANGAR/Offices
T-HANGAR
SHADE PORTS
GENERAL AVIATION HANGAR
GENERAL AVIATION HANGAR
HANGARS 12 & 13
HANGAR 11
BANK OF AMERICA
GROUP HANGAR 1
GROUP HANGAR A
GROUP HANGAR II
BOA HANGAR
WILSON AIR STORAGE/OFFICES
FUEL FARM SOUTH
FUEL FARM NORTH
FBO VEHICLE STORAGE SHED
BUILDING
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
APRON
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
YEAR
32,990
75,540
2001
34,036
19,720
N/A
26,480
6,912
16,528
15,000
45,835
25,698
23,203
28,133
18,810
21,600
14,400
15,968
16,574
60,796
25,552
34,804
23,640
61,834
7,326
N/A
N/A
1,309
858,5201
36,970
12,010
21,550
20,000
12,790
12,910
146,190
51,660
36,530
20,480
77,520
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1983
1997
1999
1983
2008
2012/1983
1984
1984
1984
1984
1983
1983
1994
2002
2003
2005
2006
N/A
1996
N/A
N/A
The following facilities share the apron area mentioned in the table, which totals nearly 860,000
square feet.
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Nearly half of the GA facilities were constructed in the 1980’s, while the remaining
were constructed in the late 1990’s and 2000’s when the demand of corporate jets
increased. The FBO hangar facilities include aircraft storage such as shade ports,
T-hangars, and large overnight hangars. Other FBO facilities include office space,
maintenance facilities, service operations, and equipment storage facilities.
There are two GA fuel farms, one located on the north campus (Building 337) and
one on the south campus (Building 336). All but a few of the GA facilities are
managed and maintained by Wilson Air Center, the local FBO, under a contract with
the Airport and City of Charlotte. The two GA tenants not managed by Wilson Air
include Bank of America and Duke Energy. These two corporate tenants maintain
separate contracts managed through the Airport. Exhibits 1-6 and 1-7, General
Aviation Facilities, show the existing GA facilities.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-12
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-5
CARGO FACILITIES
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-13
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-6
GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES (1 of 2)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-14
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-7
GENERAL AVIATION FACILITIES (2 of 2)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-15
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-16
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
1.3.4
FINAL
ARFF
ARFF facilities are structures associated with aircraft and structure firefighting,
which include pump houses, storage areas, and fire stations. The Airport currently
has two ARFF stations on the airfield and an off-airport fire station located south of
the Runway 36R RPZ. Fire Station #41 (Building 248), located west of the central
portion of Runway 18C/36C, serves the west side of the airfield: Fire Station #17
(Building 304), centrally located east of Runway 18L/36R, serves the east side of
the airfield and also contains structural fire support. Fire Station #30 (Building
243) serves as backup response to emergencies at CLT and is located outside the
AOA on the south side of West Boulevard. Both Fire Station #17 and #30 serve
other parts of the community during emergencies and are not fully dedicated to the
Airport.
The ARFF teams also utilize four other facilities. These facilities include a Group
Hangar Fire Pump (Building 332), North Fire Pump House (Building 333), and Group
Hangars A and B Fire Pump (Building 334). ARFF training is conducted at the ARFF
burn pit (Building 320) located on the south east side of the airfield. This facility is
owned and operated by the Airport; however, the NCANG also utilizes this facility
for training. A list of the existing ARFF facilities is shown in Table 1-5, ARFF
Facilities.
Table 1-5
ARFF FACILITIES
FACILITY
NO.
FACILITY
DESCRIPTION
BUILDING
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
APRON
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
YEAR
243
248
304
320
332
333
334
FIRE STATION #30
FIRE STATION #41
FIRE STATION #17
ARFF TRAINING
GROUP HANGAR FIRE PUMP
NORTH FIRE PUMP HOUSE
GROUP HANGARS A AND B FIRE PUMP
1,214
N/A
13,010
2,356
250
250
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1991
2010
1985
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note:
Building 320 is a joint ARFF training facility used by both Airport ARFF staff and the NCANG
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139, Subpart D states that the
amount of ARFF equipment required at an airport is determined by an index based
on the size of largest aircraft operating at the Airport. CLT is an Index D Airport,
which requires the Airport to have a minimum of three (3) ARFF vehicles per fire
station, along with a specific amount of suppression materials (water, foam, etc.).
In an emergency, the first vehicle must arrive at the scene within three minutes to
the mid-point of each runway. CLT has two ARFF stations to meet the three-minute
response time requirements. Exhibits 1-8 and 1-9, ARFF Facilities, show the
existing ARFF facilities at the Airport.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-17
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
1.3.5
FINAL
AIRPORT SUPPORT
Airport Support facilities are located on the south side of the airfield between
Runway 18C/36C and Runway 18L/36R. There are also some scattered on the
southeast side of the airfield. The main Airport fuel farm is labeled as an Airport
Support facility (Building 108) and is located northwest of the passenger terminal
facilities along Old Dowd Road. Airport Support also includes the Airport offices,
also known as CLT center (Building 118), located north of Runway 18L/36R. A list
of the existing Airport Support facilities is shown in Table 2-6, Airport Support
Facilities.
Table 1-6
AIRPORT SUPPORT FACILITIES
FACILITY
NO.
FACILITY
DESCRIPTION
BUILDING
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
APRON
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
YEAR
108
118
206
209
219
221
224
225
227
228
246
253
254
255
FUEL FARM
CLT CENTER
PIPE AND BOILER
AIRCRAFT HANGAR/OFFICE
OLD TERMINAL
RECYCLING CENTER
AIRPORT SUPPORT
AIRPORT MAINTNENACE/STORAGE
AIRPORT SUPPORT
AIRPORT SUPPORT
MAINTENANCE
AIRPORT SUPPORT
AIRPORT SUPPORT
AIRPORT SUPPORT
2,125
122,050
14,400
16,650
58,847
56,047
21,092
23,360
23,531
69,860
5,105
23,989
23,633
16,542
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1986
N/A
N/A
1985
1954
1965
1993
1993
1996
2002
1967
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Airport Support facilities make up almost 480,000 square feet of facilities at CLT.
Most of the Airport Support facilities are reutilized facilities such as old Cargo or
terminal facilities. The facilities are mainly used for maintenance or Airport Support
equipment, storage of equipment, and office space. Half of Building 228 is used for
Airport Support, however, it is listed under Cargo as well, and intended to be a
Cargo facility in the future. It is listed in the Airport Support table but not
highlighted in the exhibit mentioned below. Portions of the CLT Center (Building
118) and another Airport Support facility (Building 255) are located in the RPZs of
Runway 18L/36R. This will be further examined in the Alternatives chapter.
Exhibits 1-10 through 1-12, Airport Support Facilities, show the existing
Airport Support facilities, while Exhibit 1-13, Fuel Farm Facilities, shows the
existing fuel farms.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-18
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-8
ARFF FACILITIES (1 of 2)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-19
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-9
ARFF FACILITIES (2 of 2)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-20
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-10
AIRPORT SUPPORT FACILITIES (1 of 3)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-21
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-11
AIRPORT SUPPORT FACILITIES (2 of 3)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-22
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-12
AIRPORT SUPPORT FACILITIES (3 of 3)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-23
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-13
FUEL FARM FACILITIES
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-24
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
1.3.6
FINAL
CATERING
There are two Catering facilities, the Express Catering (Building 213) and LSG Sky
Chefs (Building 217). Combined, both facilities total over 45,000 square feet of
space. LSG Sky Chefs (Building 217) was built in 2000 while Express Catering
(Building 213) was built in 1957. A list of the existing Catering facilities is shown in
Table 1-7, Catering Facilities. A depiction of the two Catering facilities can be
found on Exhibit 1-14, Catering Facilities.
Table 1-7
CATERING FACILITIES
FACILITY
NO.
217
1.3.7
BUILDING AREA
(SQ. FT.)
APRON AREA
(SQ. FT.)
YEAR
10,308
N/A
1957
36,404
N/A
2000
CC AIR MAINTENACE
(EXPRESS CATERING)
LSG SKY CHEFS
213
Source:
FACILITY
DESCRIPTION
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
GOVERNMENT
Government facilities include structures associated with the North Carolina Air
National Guard (NCANG), North Carolina Army National Guard (NCARNG), the
Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), Charlotte Mecklenburg County Police
Department (CMPD), and other government-run facilities.
The Government
facilities total approximately 99,000 square feet and are all located east of Runway
18L/36R with the exception of the ATCT. The existing ATCT is located north of the
passenger terminal facilities. Table 1-8, Government Facilities, provides a list of
the Government facilities at the Airport.
Table 1-8
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
FACILITY
NO.
107
121
236
303
309
321
322
328
Source:
FACILITY
DESCRIPTION
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER
ASR-9
NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY
NC AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE
GADO (Weather Building)
CMPD HELICOPTER HANGAR
CIVIL AIR PATROL
CMPD Admin
BUILDING
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
APRON AREA
(SQ. FT.)
YEAR
15,192
1,984
67,173
354,588
7,206
6,528
4,096
2,119
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1979
1990
N/A
N/A
1958
1976
1941
1976
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-25
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
A majority of the Government facilities are included in the NCANG and NCARNG
Bases. The NCANG facilities occupy a multi-building complex (Buildings 3033) on
the northeast side of the airfield, east of the Runway 18L end. This base currently
has a mission to provide tactical airlift support to the US military and deliver
supplies where needed using C-130 aircraft.
The Civil Air Patrol (Building 322), CMPD (Building 321 and 328), and National
Weather Facility (Building 309)4 are government-operated facilities utilizing hangar
and office space.
Other government-operated facilities at CLT include the ATCT (Building 107),
located between the three parking garages north of the passenger terminal facility
and the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9) (Building 121) centrally located on the
airfield south of the passenger terminal area. The FAA is currently reviewing plans
to relocate the ATCT south of Runway 5/23. The FAA has conducted a relocation
study5 for the ASR-9 and has identified a final site north of Wilkinson Boulevard,
between Runways 18L/36R and 18C/36C. The design and locations of the proposed
ATCT and ASR-9 facilities will be depicted as-is (in their current design phase)
throughout this document. The NCARNG has various building facilities (Building
2363) located on a small support base southeast of the Runway 36R end.
All Government facilities are depicted in Exhibits 1-15 through 1-17,
Government Facilities.
1.3.8
OTHER SUPPORT FACILITIES
The other support facilities include the Carolinas Aviation Museum and associated
storage facilities located on the northeast portion of the Airport, east of the Runway
18L end. There are two museum facilities that total approximately 79,000 square
feet of hangar, museum display, and office space. The facilities were built in the
late 1990’s and early 2000’s. A list of the museum facilities is shown in Table 1-9,
Other Facilities, and depicted in Exhibit 1-18, Other Support Facilities.
Table 1-9
OTHER FACILITIES
FACILITY
NO.
300
329
330
Source:
3
4
5
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
AVIATION MUSEUM STORAGE
AVIATION MUSEUM
AVIATION MUSEUM HANGAR
BUILDING
AREA
(SQ. FT.)
12,000
9,234
58,071
APRON AREA
(SQ. FT.)
YEAR
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1998
2004
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Buildings 236 and 303 are representative of a multitude of NCANG and NCARNG facilities including
hangars, office space, storage, and training areas.
This facility is formerly known as the GADO facility and is planned for demolition in the short-term
planning period.
Final Site Survey Report, CLT ASR-9 Relocation Project, Revision 0, August 12, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-26
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-14
CATERING FACILITIES
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-27
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-15
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES (1 of 3)
Source: Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-28
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-16
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES (2 of 3)
Source: Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-29
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-17
GOVERNMENT FACILITIES (3 of 3)
Source:
Landrum & Brown, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-30
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 1-18
OTHER SUPPORT FACILITIES
Source:
Landrum & Brown
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-31
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 1 – Inventory
Page 1-32
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
CHAPTER 2
SUPPORT FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS
2.1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the future support facility requirements that meet the
forecast demand presented in Chapter 2 of the ACEP study at Charlotte Douglas
International Airport (CLT). In addition to providing capacity for growth in demand,
the facilities also need to accommodate the proposed airfield changes vetted in the
Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan (ACEP) and depicted on the most recent 2015
Airport Layout Plan (ALP). Factors such as support facility uses, aircraft size,
demand type, and peak volumes are key drivers of facility needs.
CLT requirements were calculated based on industry standards and airport planning
methods accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The support facilities at CLT are categorized as follows:








Airline Maintenance and Support
Cargo
General Aviation
ARFF
Airport Support
Catering
Government
Other6
Facility requirements were not evaluated on an individual basis or by tenant.
Instead, total requirements were calculated for each facility category. The total
amount of site area required in the future may differ depending on the tenant’s
annual growth or additional tenants coming to the Airport. The future support
facility needs were determined based upon a baseline of currently operating
conditions at the Airport.
The support facility requirements analysis is the foundation for the development of
alternatives. The requirements identified in this chapter were evaluated further in
the Alternatives Analysis, Chapter 3, to assess all reasonable and prudent
alternatives to accommodate the future demand. The methodology and results of
these facility requirements are presented in the following sections.
6
Other support facilities at CLT include recreational or education aviation facilities such as the
museum located on the GA campus and airport lookout area that is currently located between the
Runway 18R and 18C ends.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-1
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.2
FINAL
METHODOLOGY
The requirements analysis determines the amount of support facility building, auto
parking, and aircraft apron area (if necessary) required to accommodate the
projected levels of demand through the defined planning periods (2018, 2023,
2028, and 2033). Requirements for the major support facilities were calculated
using spreadsheet models developed by Landrum & Brown. These spreadsheet
models utilize the CLT forecast of aviation demand and apply user-defined planning
assumptions to determine future facility requirements. For all support facility
categories, with the exception of Cargo, the following assumptions were made:

The future building space is based on the current space available within the
facility (multi-levels); however, the proposed building footprint is based on
At-Grade Level (AGL) requirements.

The total site area includes a 10 percent increase to account for maintenance
access, security fencing, miscellaneous external facilities, etc.

The auto parking requirements were calculated using a factor of parking
square foot per building square foot. For each category, one facility was
chosen to determine the planning factor. This factor was applied to the
future building needed facility requirements to determine how much parking
would be required for each planning year.
The analysis of future support facility requirements is based on the forecast growth
of aircraft operations, passengers, cargo tonnage, or based GA aircraft.
2.3
2.3.1
SUPPORT FACILITIES
AIRLINE SUPPORT & MAINTENANCE
Airline Support facilities provide storage of materials that support the airlines’
operation throughout the Airport, including the terminal, staff training, GSE
equipment, and other facilities. The Airline Maintenance facilities provide support to
the operation and maintenance of the airlines’ aircraft fleet.
The Airline
Maintenance facility requires a maintenance hangar and apron space.
Requirements were determined for these two distinct types of airline facilities;
however, they are combined in the alternatives analysis due to their potential for
cross utilization.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-2
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.1.1
FINAL
Airline Support
There are eight Airline Support facilities, which include a training facility,
distribution center, pump house, GSE maintenance building, and other multi-use
facilities. AA occupies the majority of these facilities.
In order to calculate the facility requirements for the Airline Support facilities, the
base year (2013) and forecast annual aircraft operations was used to determine
future building, auto parking, and total site area size requirements for each
planning year horizon. As needed, annual aircraft operations for each planning
horizon were interpolated from the ACEP forecast to determine the necessary
facility sizes. Based on this analysis, it was determined that additional Airline
Support facilities will be required by 2018. Table 2-1, Airline Support Facility
Requirements, provides the anticipated Airline Support facility requirements.
Table 2-1
AIRLINE SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Building
Year
Total Annual
Operations
Actual
2013
Forecast
2018
2023
2028
2033
Source:
Auto Parking
Total Site Area
Area
Required
Surplus
(Deficit)
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
557,948
424,300
0
-
-
648,010
733,560
824,740
930,080
492,800
557,800
627,200
707,300
(68,500)
(133,500)
(202,900)
(283,000)
(86,700)
(169,000)
(256,900)
(358,300)
(170,700)
(332,800)
(505,800)
(705,400)
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-3
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.1.2
FINAL
Airline Maintenance
There are currently eight Airline Maintenance facilities with a total of approximately
657,000 square feet of hangar/building space for the maintenance of aircraft.
There is also approximately 661,000 square feet of aircraft apron space located in
front of the maintenance hangars. AA accounts for the majority of the aircraft
maintenance at CLT, with a fleet mix of up to Group V aircraft serving the Airport.
For planning purposes, it is recommended to design all future aircraft maintenance
aprons to meet Group V design standards to be consistent with the overall airport
design guidelines.
Based
Airline
future
shows
years.
on the future annual aircraft operations, it was determined that the current
Maintenance facilities will need to be expanded by 2018 to accommodate the
demand levels. Table 2-2, Airline Maintenance Facility Requirements,
the projected Airline Maintenance facility requirements for the planning
Table 2-2
AIRLINE MAINTENANCE FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Building
Total
Annual
Operations
Aircraft Apron
Auto Parking
Total Site Area
Area
Required
Surplus
(Deficit)
Area
Required
Surplus (Deficit)
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
(Sq. Ft.)
557,948
656,900
0
660,600
0
2018
648,010
762,900
(106,000)
767,200
2023
733,560
863,600
(206,700)
868,500
2028
824,740
971,000
(314,100)
2033
930,080
1,095,000
(438,100)
Year
Actual
2013
-
-
(106,600)
(59,200)
(299,000)
(207,900)
(115,400)
(583,000)
976,400
(315,800)
(175,400)
(885,800)
1,101,100
(440,500)
(244,600)
(1,235,500)
Forecast
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-4
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.2
FINAL
CARGO
Demand for air Cargo facilities and infrastructure is based primarily on the tonnage
volumes that they are forecast to handle and the throughput targets that are
established for each individual facility. Other issues such as the nature of the Cargo
itself, the level of automation available at each facility, and the policies and
practices of the operators will also have a direct impact. As a result, the capacity of
individual Cargo buildings can vary based on the nature of its operation, existing
throughput ratios (i.e. tons processed per square foot) and the potential to improve
efficiencies (automation).
Some of the existing CLT facilities are not being utilized solely for Cargo handling
purposes and are not achieving throughput rates at the levels observed among
other newer and dedicated Cargo facilities in the industry. Due to the ongoing
lease agreements and operating policies in place, the Cargo facility requirements
estimated herein are presented under two scenarios:

As a replacement ‘In-Kind’ Cargo facility scenario with assumed continuation
of current leasing policies and space utilization

As a ‘Best Practices’ Cargo facility requirements scenario with improved
building design and utilization following industry standards.
These assumptions will reflect best practices planning standards throughout the
global Cargo industry and are intended to reflect throughput ratios that are
necessary to meet forecast demand and are achievable with appropriate planning.
The ‘In-Kind’ replacement scenario assumes and allows for airlines to operate in the
future with the same available space ratios they currently utilize, irrespective of
cost and inefficiencies. The ‘Best Practices’ scenario assumes improved throughput
efficiencies will be achieved by airlines in renovated or new facilities with modern
layouts, and that the Airport can allocate appropriate facility space to airlines as
needed based on the Cargo forecast and allocation assumptions.
Cargo facilities at CLT are currently located to the south of the passenger terminals
in between Runways 5/23 and 18L/36R. There are eight buildings (seven with
apron access and one without) that are currently inventoried as Cargo buildings and
are providing nearly 263,000 square feet of building space and 1.2 million square
feet of apron space for air Cargo use. Cargo facilities are essentially comprised of
the building area (warehouse and office), auto parking area (employee and visitor),
truck parking area (building docks and queueing area), and apron area for aircraft
and airfield access. Requirements based on the Cargo forecast and utilization
assumptions have been prepared for these major facility areas for both the ‘In-kind’
and ‘Best Practices’ scenarios defined above.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-5
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
The two scenarios analyzed present a high and low range of Cargo facility
requirements at CLT that can be applied for land use planning and preservation
(high case), and for initial concept planning of an efficient Cargo zone with limited
resources in available apron frontage and land area. Table 2-3, Cargo Facility
Requirements, provides a summary for each scenario for comparison.
In the ‘In-Kind’ (High Case) facility replacements, 391,700 square feet of Cargo
building space, 1.5 million square feet of Cargo apron and 2.7 million square feet of
total land for Cargo use would be required during the forecast period.
This approach suggests an additional 128,700 square feet of building area and
355,700 square feet of Cargo apron would be required by 2033. In total, the area
designated for Cargo operations would need to be nearly 900,000 square feet larger
than what was inventoried in 2013. The total requirement for the CLT Cargo area
in 2033 under the ‘In-Kind’ scenario (nearly 2.7 million square feet) is roughly
50 percent larger than the space provided in 2013.
In the ‘Best Practices’ (Low Case) facility utilization, 172,400 square feet of building
area and 595,000 square feet of Cargo apron area would be required to meet the
Cargo demand in 2033. In total, about 1.1 million square feet of land is required to
be designated for CLT Cargo operations; less than one-half of the ‘In-Kind’
requirements and less than the space allocated in 2013.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-6
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 2-3
CARGO FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
In‐Kind Scenario ‐ Assuming Current Leasing Policies and Space Utilization
Year
Actual
2013
Forecast
2018
2023
2028
2033
Notes:
Cargo Building Area Cargo Tonnage Area Surplus (tons)
Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
Cargo Apron Area Area Surplus Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
Cargo Auto Parking Area Area Surplus Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
129,800
262,992
0
1,188,177
0
142,800
0
144,900
165,600
189,400
216,900
283,500
315,100
350,900
391,700
(20,500)
(52,100)
(87,900)
(128,700)
1,244,500
1,333,100
1,433,900
1,543,900
(56,300)
(144,900)
(245,700)
(355,700)
150,600
162,000
174,000
187,200
(7,800)
(19,200)
(31,200)
(44,400)
Cargo Truck Parking Area Area Surplus Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
204,600
226,900
251,800
279,900
311,900
Total Cargo Area
Area Surplus Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
0
1,798,569
0
(22,300)
(47,200)
(75,300)
(107,300)
2,096,100
2,268,200
2,462,600
2,678,200
(297,500)
(469,600)
(664,000)
(879,600)
-Assumes tenants will continue utilizing leased areas in the same manner into the future.
-Assumes new buildings will be provided as 'like size' replacements as necessary.
-Surplus/Deficit figures assume like apron areas would be maintained at new facilities.
Best Practices Scenario ‐ Assuming Improved Building Design and Industry Standard Utilization Rates
Year
Actual
2013
Forecast
2018
2023
2028
2033
Notes:
Cargo Tonnage (tons)
Cargo Building Area Area Surplus Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
Cargo Apron Area Area Surplus Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
Cargo Auto Parking Area Area Surplus Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
129,800
262,992
0
1,188,177
0
142,800
0
144,900
165,600
189,400
216,900
113,900
130,100
150,000
172,400
149,100
132,900
113,000
90,600
595,000
595,000
595,000
595,000
593,200
593,200
593,200
593,200
44,700
51,300
58,800
66,600
98,100
91,500
84,000
76,200
Cargo Truck Parking Area Area Surplus Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
204,600
133,500
152,500
175,800
202,000
Total Cargo Area
Area Surplus Required
(Deficit)
Square Feet Square Feet
0
1,798,569
0
71,100
52,100
28,800
2,600
975,800
1,021,800
1,077,600
1,139,600
822,800
776,800
721,000
659,000
-Assumes exisiting building and apron capacities are maintained for comparison to requirements
-Assumes improved operations and efficiencies in the near term
-Assumes new buildings will be efficiently sized for specific freighter and belly cargo demand
-Assumes new buildings will be utilized with industry standard throughput rates
-Assumes Mezzanine office space provided, limiting required building footprint
-Assumes dedicated apron for freighter positions only, additional apron for additional storage provided separately
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-7
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-8
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.2.1
FINAL
Cargo Requirements Scenarios
Total Cargo tonnage (freighter and belly) is forecast to increase from 129,800 tons
in 2013 to 216,900 tons by 2033. This increase represents average annual growth
of 2.6 percent per year over twenty years. Freighter Cargo (transported on
dedicated air freighter aircraft) handled mostly by FedEx and UPS is the largest
Cargo segment and is projected to contribute about 60 percent of the total Cargo
throughout the forecast period. Belly Cargo (transported in the belly of commercial
passenger aircraft) is projected to make up the remaining tonnage, and is
comprised of mail and freight; of which about one-third is mail and two-thirds
freight. Table 2-4, CLT Cargo Tonnage Forecast, presents the CLT Cargo
tonnages forecast from 2013 to 2033. AA (including former US Airways Cargo)
makes up the majority of belly Cargo, both freight and mail, with over 80 percent of
the total belly Cargo volume. AA, FedEx, and UPS represented the three large
Cargo operators and accounted for approximately 93 percent of all Cargo tonnage
in 2013.
Table 2-4
CLT CARGO TONNAGE FORECAST
Cargo Volume (tons)
Year
2013
Domestic International
Cargo Volume (tons)
Mail
Total
Belly
Freighter
Total
87,886
23,835
18,079
129,800
53,970
75,830
129,800
2018
96,400
28,900
19,600
144,900
57,983
86,917
144,900
2023
108,000
35,500
22,100
165,600
66,258
99,342
165,600
2028
121,000
43,700
24,700
189,400
75,770
113,630
189,400
2033
135,500
53,700
27,700
216,900
86,760
130,140
216,900
Forecast
CAGR
2013‐33
Source:
2.2%
4.1%
2.2%
2.6%
2.4%
2.7%
2.6%
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-9
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.2.2
FINAL
High Case – ‘In-Kind’ Replacement Scenario
The ‘In-Kind’ (High Case) Cargo Facility Requirements Scenario assumes that the
airlines, which used the existing Cargo buildings in 2013 will continue to operate in
the same manner in the future as they did in 2013, and will need at least the same
building space, auto parking, truck parking, and apron capacity in the future.
This approach maintains any leasing or operational agreements with AA, United
Airlines, FedEx, UPS, the USPS, and ‘Others’ (all other airlines not specified). This
assures that they can continue their Cargo operations in the same manner with the
same sized facilities in the future when the Cargo facilities will need to be relocated
due to the expansion of the passenger terminals and the airfield. Beyond existing
facilities, future Cargo requirements were allowed to increase at the same rate as
the demand for building space for these airlines. The facility requirements for
United Airlines and Others were held constant throughout the forecast period as the
2013 utilization ratios represented extreme conditions, and much lower in 2033
compared to minimum industry standards.
The following assumptions in
Table 2-5, ‘In-Kind’ Cargo Facility Requirements Scenario Assumptions,
were applied to the ‘In-Kind’ scenario and represent utilization rates derived from
2013 operations.
The CLT Cargo facility requirements under the ‘In-Kind’ scenario project that the
existing facilities will need to increase in size by 49 percent based on building
square footage, and 30 percent based on apron square footage. In estimating the
total land area for the individual facilities, an additional 10 percent was added to
account for a buffer area around each facility. Table 2-6, ‘In-Kind” Cargo
Facility Requirements, presents the individual Cargo facility requirements based
on the ‘In-Kind’ scenario assumptions.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-10
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 2-5
‘IN-KIND’ CARGO FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SCENARIO-ASSUMPTIONS
'In‐Kind' Cargo Facility Requirements Scenario ‐ General Assumption Metrics
Processing Rates by Segment Metrics
American Airlines Cargo Facility
0.3 tons per sq ft/ year
FedEx Facility
1.3 tons per sq ft/ year
UPS Facility
1.2 tons per sq ft/ year
United Airlines Cargo Facility
0.0 tons per sq ft/ year
USPS Mail Facility
0.3 tons per sq ft/ year
Other Freight/Belly
0.2 tons per sq ft/ year
Auto Parking American Airlines Cargo Facility
FedEx Facility
4.9 spaces per 10,000 sq ft building
8.2 spaces per 10,000 sq ft building
UPS Facility
28.2 spaces per 10,000 sq ft building
United Airlines Cargo Facility
11.0 spaces per 10,000 sq ft building
USPS Mail Facility
24.3 spaces per 10,000 sq ft building
Other Freight/Belly
46.1 spaces per 10,000 sq ft building
Truck Parking American Airlines Cargo Facility
3.1 bays per 10,000 sq ft building
FedEx Facility
4.0 bays per 10,000 sq ft building
UPS Facility
7.4 bays per 10,000 sq ft building
United Airlines Cargo Facility
4.6 bays per 10,000 sq ft building
USPS Mail Facility
1.1 bays per 10,000 sq ft building
Other Freight/Belly
5.6 bays per 10,000 sq ft building
Auto/Truck Parking Space
Average Truck Parking Space Area
Average Auto Parking Space Area
1,875 sq ft per space
300 sq ft per space
Aircraft Apron Area
FedEx Facility
30,300 sq ft apron per 10,000 sq ft building
UPS Facility
88,100 sq ft apron per 10,000 sq ft building
United Airlines Cargo Facility
Others (Freight/Belly) Cargo Facility
Source:
29,800 sq ft apron per 10,000 sq ft building
134,900 sq ft apron per 10,000 sq ft building
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-11
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 2-6
‘IN-KIND’ CARGO FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Replacment 'In‐Kind' Cargo Facility Scenario ‐ Assuming Current Leasing Policies and Space Utilization
Charlotte ‐Douglas International Airport
Cargo Facility Requirements
American Airlines Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
Total Building Area Total Apron Area
Total Auto Parking Area
Total Truck Parking Area
Total Apron Parking Positions
Total Auto Parking Spaces
Total Truck Bays
FedEx Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
Total Building Area Total Apron Area
Total Auto Parking Area
Total Truck Parking Area
Total Apron Parking Positions
Total Auto Parking Spaces
Total Truck Bays
UPS Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
Total Building Area Total Apron Area
Total Auto Parking Area
Total Truck Parking Area
Total Apron Parking Positions
Total Auto Parking Spaces
Total Truck Bays
United Airlines Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
Total Building Area Total Apron Area
Total Auto Parking Area
Total Truck Parking Area
Total Apron Parking Positions
Total Auto Parking Spaces
Total Truck Bays
USPS Mail Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
Total Building Area Total Apron Area
Total Auto Parking Area
Total Truck Parking Area
Total Apron Parking Positions
Total Auto Parking Spaces
Total Truck Bays
Other Freight/Belly Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
Total Building Area Total Apron Area
Total Auto Parking Area
Total Truck Parking Area
Total Apron Parking Positions
Total Auto Parking Spaces
Total Truck Bays
Total CLT Cargo Facilities Requirements
Total Cargo Tonnage
Total Building Area Total Apron Area
Total Auto Parking Area
Total Truck Parking Area
Total Apron Parking Positions
Total Auto Parking Spaces
Total Truck Bays
Actual
2013
2018
Forecast and Requirement
2023
2028
(tons)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(positions)
(spaces)
(spaces)
29,083
85,157
269,887
12,600
40,950
‐
42
26
31,663
92,710
293,820
13,800
45,680
‐
46
29
36,792
107,730
341,420
16,200
51,980
‐
54
33
42,978
125,840
398,810
18,900
61,430
‐
63
39
50,201
146,990
465,840
21,900
70,880
‐
73
45
(tons)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(positions)
(spaces)
(spaces)
55,445
42,690
129,280
10,500
85,050
4
35
17
64,895
49,970
151,330
12,300
100,060
4
41
20
73,617
56,680
171,650
14,100
115,070
4
47
23
83,575
64,350
194,880
15,900
130,080
4
53
26
95,002
73,150
221,530
18,000
150,090
4
60
30
(tons)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(positions)
(spaces)
(spaces)
19,480
16,316
143,680
13,800
12,600
2
46
12
20,886
17,490
154,020
15,000
13,650
2
50
13
23,694
19,840
174,710
16,800
15,750
2
56
15
26,422
22,130
194,880
18,900
17,850
2
63
17
28,631
23,980
211,170
20,400
18,900
2
68
18
(tons)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(positions)
(spaces)
(spaces)
100
21,900
65,276
7,200
15,000
1
24
10
384
21,900
65,280
7,200
15,000
1
24
10
442
21,900
65,280
7,200
15,000
1
24
10
511
21,900
65,280
7,200
15,000
1
24
10
591
21,900
65,280
7,200
15,000
1
24
10
(tons)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(positions)
(spaces)
(spaces)
18,079
53,946
‐
39,300
9,000
‐
131
6
19,600
58,480
‐
42,900
10,500
‐
143
7
22,100
65,940
‐
48,300
12,000
‐
161
8
24,700
73,700
‐
53,700
13,500
‐
179
9
27,700
82,650
‐
60,300
15,000
‐
201
10
(tons)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(positions)
(spaces)
(spaces)
7,385
42,983
580,054
59,400
42,000
2
198
24
7,473
42,983
580,050
59,400
42,000
2
198
24
8,955
42,983
580,050
59,400
42,000
2
198
24
11,214
42,983
580,050
59,400
42,000
2
198
24
14,775
42,983
580,050
59,400
42,000
2
198
24
(tons)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(sq ft)
(positions)
(spaces)
(spaces)
129,573
262,992
1,188,177
142,800
204,600
9
476
95
144,900
283,500
1,244,500
150,600
226,900
9
502
103
165,600
315,100
1,333,100
162,000
251,800
9
540
113
189,400
350,900
1,433,900
174,000
279,900
9
580
125
216,900
391,700
1,543,900
187,200
311,900
9
624
137
2033
Source: Landrum & Brown
Notes:
-Existing building sizes provided by Airport Inventory records; apron and parking positions estimated by L&B
-Assumes tenants will continue utilizing leased areas in the same manner into the future
-Assumes new buildings will be provided as 'like size'/'in-kind' replacements as necessary
-Additional Truck queueing spaces included in the Truck Parking Area total but not in the total Truck Bays
-United Airlines Cargo and Other Freight/Belly facilities held constant at existing size
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-12
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.2.3
FINAL
Low Case – ‘Best Practices’ Replacement Scenario
The ‘Best Practices’ (Low Case) Cargo Facility Requirements Scenario assumes
future utilization of renovated or newly constructed buildings, that are appropriately
sized, and can achieve ratios within the expected efficiency range of the global
Cargo industry. Due to the need to relocate most of the existing Cargo facilities, it
is prudent to assume renovated or replacement buildings will be designed and
operated in a more efficient manner. Future planning of these facilities should
expect utilization rates more comparable to industry standards and that new Cargo
facilities will focus primarily on processing Cargo.
Future lease agreements and operating policies with airlines are expected to be
based on appropriate space utilization and reasonable lease rates and maintenance
costs. This ‘Best Practices’ approach assumes that the Airport will provide sufficient
space for each primary operator’s needs for the near term based on efficient use of
available capacity and room for expansion needs based on the ACEP forecast of
Cargo tonnage. It is further assumed that only AA, FedEx, UPS, and the USPS will
be provided dedicated space. The remaining airlines, classified as “Others”, will be
allocated to a shared facility.
The facility requirements were estimated by application of specific industry standard
throughput rates assuming space utilization related to the type of Cargo and Cargo
operation expected for each individual facility.
The following assumptions in
Table 2-7, ‘Best Practices’ Cargo Facility Requirements Scenario
Assumptions, were applied to the ‘Best Practices’ scenario and represent efficient
and reasonable utilization rates achievable for the primary airlines.
CLT Cargo facility requirements under the ‘Best Practices’ scenario project that the
renovated or new facilities would require less than one half of the existing Cargo
building facilities area and only two thirds of the existing building space by 2033.
In general, the existing specific area capacities (building, apron, auto parking and
truck parking) are projected to be sufficient for the 2033 Cargo tonnage demand at
CLT based upon more efficient building use and Cargo processing. In estimating
the total land area for the individual facilities, an additional 10 percent was added
to account for a buffer area around each facility. Table 2-8, ‘Best Practices’
Cargo Facility Requirements, presents the individual Cargo facility requirements
based on the ‘Best Practices’ scenario assumptions.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-13
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 2-7
‘BEST PRACTICES’ CARGO FACILITY REQUIREMENTS SCENARIOASSUMPTIONS
'Best Practices' Cargo Facility Requirements Scenario ‐ General Assumption Metrics
Processing Rates by Segment Metrics
Integrator (FedEx, UPS)
2.0 tons per sq ft/ year
Freighter All‐Cargo 1.2 tons per sq ft/ year
Belly Cargo (AA, UA, others)
1.0 tons per sq ft/ year
USPS Belly Mail Cargo
1.0 tons per sq ft/ year
Auto Parking Area
Employee Warehouse
Employee Office
Area per Space
5 spaces per 10,000 sq ft
5 spaces per 1,000 sq ft
300 sq ft
USPS Employee Warehouse
15 spaces per 10,000 sq ft
USPS Employee Office
15 spaces per 1,000 sq ft
Truck Parking Area
Truck Bay width for planning purposes
Truck Space length for area calculations
Truck Bays
15 feet
125 feet
5 bays per 10,000 sq ft
Aircraft Apron Area
Code C
27,000 sq ft per position
Code E
71,000 sq ft per position
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-14
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 2-8
‘BEST PRACTICES’ CARGO FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
'Best Practices' Cargo Facility Scenario ‐ Assuming Improved Building Design and Industry Standard Utilization Rates
Charlotte ‐Douglas International Airport
Actual
Forecast and Requirements
Cargo Facility Requirements
2013
2018
2023
2028
2033
American Airlines Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
(tons)
29,083
31,663 36,792 42,978 50,201
Total Building Area (sq ft)
85,157
36,500 42,200 49,600 57,700
Total Apron Area
(sq ft)
269,887
‐
‐
‐
‐
Total Auto Parking Area
(sq ft)
12,600
10,200 12,000 14,100 16,200
Total Truck Parking Area
(sq ft)
40,950
42,780 49,450 58,130 67,610
Total Apron Parking Positions
(positions)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Total Auto Parking Spaces
(spaces)
42
34 40 47 54
Total Truck Bays
(spaces)
26
18 21 25 29
FedEx Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
(tons)
55,445
64,895 73,617 83,575 95,002
Total Building Area (sq ft)
42,690
35,600 40,400 46,000 52,300
Total Apron Area
(sq ft)
129,280
284,000 284,000 284,000 284,000
Total Auto Parking Area
(sq ft)
10,500
10,200 11,700 13,200 15,000
Total Truck Parking Area
(sq ft)
85,050
41,730 47,350 53,910 61,290
Total Apron Parking Positions
(positions)
4
4 4 4 4
Total Auto Parking Spaces
(spaces)
35
34 39 44 50
Total Truck Bays
(spaces)
17
18 20 23 26
UPS Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
(tons)
19,480
20,886 23,694 26,422 28,631
Total Building Area (sq ft)
16,316
11,400 13,000 14,600 15,700
Total Apron Area
(sq ft)
143,680
213,000 213,000 213,000 213,000
Total Auto Parking Area
(sq ft)
13,800
3,300 3,900 4,200 4,500
Total Truck Parking Area
(sq ft)
12,600
13,360 15,240 17,110 18,400
Total Apron Parking Positions
(positions)
2
3 3 3 3
Total Auto Parking Spaces
(spaces)
46
11 13 14 15
Total Truck Bays
(spaces)
12
6 7 7 8
United Airlines Cargo Facility
‐ included in Other Freight/Belly ‐
Total Cargo Tonnage
(tons)
100
Total Building Area (sq ft)
21,900
Total Apron Area
(sq ft)
65,276
Total Auto Parking Area
(sq ft)
7,200
Total Truck Parking Area
(sq ft)
15,000
Total Apron Parking Positions
(positions)
1
Total Auto Parking Spaces
(spaces)
24
Total Truck Bays
(spaces)
10
USPS Mail Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
(tons)
18,079
19,600 22,100 24,700 27,700
Total Building Area (sq ft)
53,946
21,600 24,300 27,100 30,500
Total Apron Area
(sq ft)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Total Auto Parking Area
(sq ft)
39,300
18,600 20,700 23,700 26,400
Total Truck Parking Area
(sq ft)
9,000
25,310 28,480 31,760 35,740
Total Apron Parking Positions
(positions)
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
Total Auto Parking Spaces
(spaces)
131
62 69 79 88
Total Truck Bays
(spaces)
6
11 12 14 15
Other Freight/Belly Cargo Facility
Total Cargo Tonnage
(tons)
7,385
7,856 9,397 11,725 15,366
Total Building Area (sq ft)
42,983
8,800 10,180 12,720 16,160
Total Apron Area
(sq ft)
580,054
98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000
Total Auto Parking Area
(sq ft)
59,400
2,400 3,000 3,600 4,500
Total Truck Parking Area
(sq ft)
42,000
10,310 11,930 14,910 18,940
Total Apron Parking Positions
(positions)
2
2 2 2 2
Total Auto Parking Spaces
(spaces)
198
8 10 12 15
Total Truck Bays
(spaces)
24
4 5 6 8
Total CLT Cargo Facilities Requirements
Total Cargo Tonnage
(tons)
129,573
144,900 165,600 189,400 216,900
Total Building Area (sq ft)
262,992
113,900 130,100 150,000 172,400
Total Apron Area
(sq ft)
1,188,177
595,000 595,000 595,000 595,000
Total Auto Parking Area
(sq ft)
142,800
44,700 51,300 58,800 66,600
Total Truck Parking Area
(sq ft)
204,600
133,500 152,500 175,800 202,000
Total Apron Parking Positions
(positions)
9
9 9 9 9
Total Auto Parking Spaces
(spaces)
476
149 171 196 222
Total Truck Bays
(spaces)
95
57 65 75 86
Source: Landrum & Brown
Notes:
-Existing building sizes provided by Airport Inventory records; apron and parking positions estimated by L&B
-Assumes improved operations and efficiencies in the near term, dedicated apron only for freighters
-Assumes new buildings will be efficiently sized for specific freighter and belly cargo demand
-Assumes new buildings will be utilized with industry standard throughput rates, and Mezzanine office space to reduce building footprint
-Additional Truck queueing spaces included in the Truck Parking Area total but not in the total Truck Bays
-United Airlines Cargo consolidated with Other Freight/Belly facilities
Source:
Landrum & Brown Analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-15
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.3
FINAL
GENERAL AVIATION
GA facilities at CLT are unlike many GA facilities at large to medium-hub
commercial airports across the country. Typically, as the size of the commercial
operation increases (operations and passengers), it is less attractive for GA users to
mix with commercial operations. Often GA users will relocate to a reliever facility.
At larger airports, passenger operations demand takes precedence over GA
operations and it is usually beneficial for the GA operations to remain small and/or
relocate to other reliever or GA airports. However, GA activity at CLT, especially
corporate tenants, is prevalent and has expressed a desire to stay at the Airport as
it continues to grow in the future. There is a current wait list totaling 16 tenants,
who are waiting for space on the east side of the Airport. The GA tenants waiting
for space include smaller aircraft operators requiring only 1,500 square feet of
building space, up to larger corporate jet operators that will require nearly 9,000
square feet building space.
The GA support facility requirements were divided into two separate analyses:
1) tenant hangar space, and 2) Fixed-Base Operator (FBO) facilities.
Tenant hangars such as recreational and corporate tenants were analyzed based on
future growth of the based aircraft at CLT, while FBO facilities were determined
using projected annual GA operations because of the large amount of transient
aircraft that utilize these services.
The recreational and corporate GA tenants occupy approximately 530,000 square
feet of building area serving private aircraft owners, as well as, small and big
business clients with larger corporate jets. As noted above, the GA tenant hangar
support facility requirements were determined using projected based GA aircraft
throughout the planning period. Based GA aircraft represented 81 tenants in 2013
(base year), however, due to the large waiting list, it was determined that 75
percent of these potential tenants would be included in the base year demand.
Considering this planning factor, 93-based aircraft were used for the base year
based aircraft demand. Therefore, it was determined that there is a current deficit
of roughly 79,000 square feet of GA hangar space for tenants and that this deficit is
expected to grow to nearly 130,000 square feet of hangar space by 2033. It is
recommended that the Airport consider the expansion of GA hangars in the future
and sized for Group C-III aircraft, which is currently the largest GA aircraft at CLT.
The future facility requirements for GA hangar space, aircraft apron, and auto
parking is depicted in Table 2-9, General Aviation Hangar and Tenant
Requirements.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-16
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 2-9
GENERAL AVIATION HANGAR AND TENANT REQUIREMENTS
Hangar
Based
Aircraft
Year
Actual
2013
Forecast
2018
2023
2028
2033
Source:
Aircraft Apron
Auto Parking
Total
Site Area
Area
Required
Surplus
(Deficit)
Area
Required
Surplus
(Deficit)
Additional
Area
Required
Additional
Area
Required
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
sq. Ft.)
sq. Ft.)
sq. Ft.)
93
611,390
(78,900)
1,402,400
0
(22,600)
(111,700)
95
97
99
101
623,720
636,290
649,120
662,210
(91,200)
(103,788)
(116,600)
(129,700)
1,437,900
1,473,800
1,510,700
1,549,300
(35,500)
(71,400)
(108,300)
(146,900)
(26,100)
(29,700)
(33,400)
(37,100)
(168,100)
(225,400)
(284,100)
(345,100)
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
As previously noted, the FBO facility requirements were determined using the
annual growth rate in commercial aircraft operations since the FBO business is
dependent on the amount of transient GA traffic at the Airport. The requirements
show a deficit in FBO facilities by the 2018 planning period. It is estimated that the
FBO will need an additional 2,500 square feet of building space for operations,
storage, and services, along with additional aircraft apron and auto parking.
The Airport currently has plans to expand the FBO facility, which will be sufficient
for the anticipated FBO demand throughout the planning period. The FBO facility
requirements are shown in Table 2-10, General Aviation (FBO) Facility
Requirements. The ultimate FBO site area requires an additional 11,100 square
feet including building, and auto parking for employees and customers.
Table 2-10
GENERAL AVIATION (FBO) FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Total
Annual
Operations
Year
Operations
Actual
2013
Forecast
2018
2023
2028
2033
Source:
FBO
FBO
Auto Parking
FBO
Total Site Area
Area
Required
Surplus
(Deficit)
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
25,426
23,620
0
0
0
26,070
26,720
27,390
28,090
24,220
24,820
25,440
26,090
(600)
(1,200)
(1,800)
(2,500)
(1,800)
(3,700)
(5,500)
(7,600)
(2,600)
(5,400)
(8,000)
(11,100)
Landrum & Brown Analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-17
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.4
FINAL
ARFF
The Airport currently has two ARFF stations on the airfield, and one off-site fire
station located south of the Runway 36R RPZ. Fire Station #41 (Building 248), is
located west of the central portion of Runway 18C/36C and serves the west side of
the airfield. Fire Station #17 (Building 304) is centrally located east of Runway
18L/36R and serves the east side of the airfield as well as terminal emergencies.
Fire Station #30 (Building 243) serves as backup response to emergencies at CLT
and is located off the airfield on the south side of West Boulevard. Both Fire
Station #17 and #30 serve other parts of the community during emergencies and
are not fully dedicated to the Airport.
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 139, Subpart D states that the
amount of ARFF equipment required at an airport is determined by an index based
on the size of aircraft operating at the Airport. CLT is an Index D Airport, which
requires the Airport to have three (3) ARFF vehicles for each station. For an aircraft
incident on a runway, the first vehicle must arrive at the runway midpoint within
three minutes of the alarm. The second and third vehicles must arrive at the scene
within four minutes.
When responding to Airport incidents the two on-airport ARFF stations currently
meet the Part 139 requirements.
However, when the new west runway is
operational, there will be a need for a third ARFF station to adequately meet the
runway response time. In addition, this new ARFF station will provide for structural
fires to the terminal and surrounding development areas.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-18
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.5
FINAL
AIRPORT SUPPORT
The Airport Support facilities are currently scattered throughout the Airport
property, utilizing old Cargo buildings and vacant facilities in order to accommodate
the growing need for additional maintenance and storage space. These facilities
are used for storage, airport maintenance, deicing equipment, and other uses
dedicated to keeping the Airport facilities in efficient operating condition.
Overall, there are 14 Airport Support facilities, totaling over 478,100 square feet of
building area. The Airport Support function is not operating efficiently due to the
number of scattered facilities throughout the Airport. Therefore, it is recommended
to consolidate the Airport Support facilities where possible to help increase its
operational efficiency and reduce costs. This will be of particular importance as the
Airport facilities continue to expand and require additional maintenance equipment
and staff.
A growth rate factor of 0.86 square feet per aircraft operation was determined
based on the base year 2013 aircraft operations and existing Airport Support facility
building area. This growth factor was applied to the forecast aircraft operations to
determine the future Airport Support facility needs as shown in Table 2-11,
Airport Support Facility Requirements.
Currently, both the building space and auto parking being used for Airport Support
is sufficient to meet current demand levels. However, by 2018, it will be necessary
to provide an additional 132,400 square feet of facilities, including building space,
storage area, and auto parking. By 2033, the Airport Support function will require
an additional 547,100 square feet of facilities, including building space, storage
area, and auto parking for employees and contractors.
Table 2-11
AIRPORT SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Building
Year
Total Annual
Operations
Actual
2013
Forecast
2018
2023
2028
2033
Source:
Auto Parking
Total Site Area
Area
Required
Surplus
(Deficit)
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
557,948
478,200
0
-
-
648,010
733,560
824,740
930,080
555,400
628,700
706,800
797,100
(77,200)
(150,500)
(228,600)
(318,900)
(43,200)
(84,200)
(127,900)
(178,500)
(132,400)
(258,200)
(392,200)
(547,100)
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-19
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.6
FINAL
CATERING
Currently, two Catering facilities serve CLT, Express Catering, and LSG Sky Chefs,
which make up approximately 46,700 square feet of facility area on the Airport.
Catering facilities require airside access to provide services to all commercial
passenger aircraft parking positions (contact and remote), and to the GA aircraft at
the FBO terminal. All Catering facilities will also need landside access for the
delivery of supplies (truck docks) and staff auto parking.
A growth rate factor of 0.08 square feet per aircraft operation was determined
based on the base year 2013 aircraft operations and existing Catering facility
building area. This growth factor was applied to the forecast aircraft operations to
determine the future Catering facility needs as shown in Table 2-12, Catering
Facility Requirements.
The existing Catering facilities and auto parking is sufficient to meet the current
demand, however, by 2018 the Catering facility will need to expand 15,100 square
feet to meet future demand. By 2033, the Catering facilities will need an additional
61,700 square feet to meet the anticipated demand. This is an increase of
approximately 40 percent to meet the long-term demand.
Table 2-12
CATERING FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Building
Total Annual
Operations
Year
Actual
2013
Forecast
2018
2023
2028
2033
Source:
Auto Parking
Total Site Area
Area
Required
Surplus
(Deficit)
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
557,948
46,700
0
-
-
648,010
733,560
824,740
930,080
54,300
61,400
69,000
77,900
(7,600)
(14,700)
(22,300)
(31,200)
(6,100)
(11,700)
(17,800)
(24,900)
(15,100)
(29,000)
(44,100)
(61,700)
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-20
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
2.3.7
FINAL
GOVERNMENT
The Government facilities at CLT consist of the North Carolina Air National Guard
(NCANG), Charlotte- Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD), ATCT, and Airport
Surveillance Radar (ASR). The proposed requirements for each of these facilities is
presented below.
Based upon interviews with the NCANG and Airport personnel, it was determined
that the NCANG Base area was insufficient in a number of areas, including military
design standards and land restrictions to accommodate future expansion. The base
has tentative plans to expand in the future in order to meet the needs of the
facility. This study determined that the best possible long-term solution to resolve
the NACANG issues would be a complete relocation of the Base facilities.
This recommendation is based on the need for the proposed fifth parallel runway
east of existing Runway 18L/36R that will run through the NACANG Base.
Long-term relocation alternatives for the future NCANG Base were developed in
coordination with the Guard personnel to ensure an appropriate site and land area
is identified to meet their future requirements.
The evaluation of NCANG
alternatives are presented in Chapter 3, Alternatives.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) site is currently located in a
basin area south and east of the Runway 36R threshold. Their operations are solely
helicopters and are coordinated with the commercial and GA operations/airspace.
Their future requirements are not directly related to the future demand at CLT.
Therefore, specific requirements were not calculated for the CMPD facilities as part
of this study. However, it was still necessary to assess the CMPD facility to assure
it does not affect the future growth and facility demand at CLT.
CMPD operations currently depart and arrive east of the Airport in order to avoid
conflict with commercial/GA aircraft arrivals and departures. The CMPD facilities
are located at a lower elevation than the Runway 36R end. Due to the lower
elevation, this site can create visual issues with arrivals and departures on Runway
18L/36R. Although helicopter traffic from the CMPD facility requires communication
with the ATCT, it is still difficult for helicopter pilots to visually check for arrivals and
departures on the adjacent runway. With the projected growth at CLT and the
proposal of a new fifth parallel runway located east of Runway 18L/36R, these
visual issues will become worse. In the long-term, the CMPD facilities will be
located between two active runways, both at higher elevations, making it difficult
for CMPD to depart and respond to emergencies in a safe and timely manner.
Their current location will also cause interference with departing and arriving
aircraft, as they will need clearance to cross the proposed east runway. This could
cause potential congestion in the airspace and delays as well. For these reasons, it
is recommended that the CMPD be relocated so it does not interfere with aircraft
arrivals and departures based on the existing and proposed runway configurations.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-21
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
A new ATCT and relocated Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR-9) are currently under
study by the FAA. The preferred sites for these facilities are presented in Chapter
3, Alternatives.
2.3.8
OTHER
The other support facilities at CLT are comprised of the Carolinas Aviation Museum,
storage associated with museum artifacts, and the Airport public lookout site.
These facilities are not required to be located on the airside. These facilities are
considered as recreational/educational support facilities. The growth of these
facilities is not directly related to the future demand at the Airport. These facilities
are reviewed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, to assure they do not have an adverse
impact on the future Airport development program.
2.4
SUMMARY
The above facility requirements analysis provides an understanding of the future
Airport facility needs to accommodate the long-term forecast demand at CLT.
The results of this analysis reveal that Airline Maintenance and Airport Support
facilities will require the most amount of facility space through 2033 at the Airport.
All facility requirements and recommendations made in this chapter are taken into
account when developing the alternatives in Chapter 3. By 2033, the Airport will
need an additional 1,329,600 square feet of area for buildings, 887,800 square feet
for auto parking, and 943,100 square feet of apron space to support the growing
demand of the support facilities.
A summary of the overall support facility
requirements is shown in Table 2-13, Overall Support Facility Requirements.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-22
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 2-13
OVERALL SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Year
Actual
2013
Forecast
2018
2023
2028
2033
Source:
General
Aviation
Cargo
Airline
Support
Airline
Maintenance
Airport
Support
Catering
TOTALS
Total
Site Area
Total
Site Area
Total
Site Area
Total
Site Area
Total
Site Area
Total
Site Area
Total
Site Area
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
Additional
Area Required
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
(111,700)
-
-
-
-
-
(111,700)
(168,100)
(225,400)
(284,100)
(345,100)
(297,500)
(469,600)
(664,000)
(879,600)
(170,700)
(332,800)
(505,800)
(705,400)
(299,000)
(583,000)
(885,800)
(1,235,500)
(132,400)
(258,200)
(392,200)
(547,100)
(15,100)
(29,000)
(44,100)
(61,700)
(1,082,800)
(1,898,000)
(2,776,000)
(3,774,400)
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-23
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 2 – Requirements
Page 2-24
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
CHAPTER 3
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
3.1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the methodology used to define and evaluate the support
facility alternatives that were developed based on the FAA approved ACEP forecast
and facility requirements presented in Chapter 2, Support Facility Requirements.
The future airfield and terminal expansion program proposed in the ACEP to meet
future demand requirements at CLT was used as a base for the alternatives.
Currently, CLT supports over 480 acres of land dedicated to facilities that support
the Airport’s operation. The support facilities are expected to grow in conjunction
with the anticipated airfield and terminal demand. Support facilities at CLT are
located in the east and south quadrants of the Airport. The following six support
facility categories were analyzed and various alternatives were developed for
evaluation:







Airline Maintenance and Support
Cargo
General Aviation
Airport Support
Catering
Government
Other7
A three tiered process was used to develop, screen, and evaluate support facility
alternatives (Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3). These levels are further explained in
the following sections.
3.2
SUPPORT FACILITIES LAND USE
Prior to beginning the support facilities planning, the current land use associated
with each support facility category and its location on the airfield was identified.
Each support facility category has specific space requirements in terms of buildings
square footage, ramp area, auto parking, etc. It was also considered important
that each category is located on the airfield in such a way that it provides the most
efficient operation to support the Airport.
7
Other support facilities at CLT include recreational or education aviation facilities such as the
museum located on the GA campus and airport lookout area that is currently located between the
Runway 18R and 18C ends.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-1
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
The existing support facilities land use is depicted in Exhibit 3-1, Existing
Support Facilities Land Use. As shown, the current support facilities at CLT
represent a mix of consolidated and nonconsolidated facilities located
predominantly on the eastern and southern portions of the airfield. Some facilities
are also located on the northern and western sides of the airfield. The North
Carolina Air National Guard (NCANG) and GA campuses have consolidated facilities
on Airport located on the eastern side of the airfield. A primary goal of this study is
to consolidate the support facilities categories to maximize efficiency.
3.3
ALTERNATIVES STUDY AREA (LEVEL 1)
The first level of screening identified consolidated airport development areas for
each category to accommodate the future support facility requirements.
The development areas are depicted in Exhibit 3-2, Future Alternatives Study
Areas. The areas are classified as showing high or low development potential.
High development potential indicates that the area could gain airfield access easily
and could be a good aeronautical development area for future Airport tenants.
The low development areas still offer development opportunity but do not have
easy airfield access and may be better suited for commercial development uses.
High development opportunities that would provide airside access for the support
facilities are available between existing Runway 18L/36R and the proposed east
runway and between existing Runway 18L/36R and existing Runway 18C/36C.
These high and low development areas were analyzed as potential alternative
development areas for the growth and/or relocation of support facilities at CLT to
meet the short- and long-term needs of the Airport.
3.3.1
ALTERNATIVES STUDY AREA BREAKOUTS
Each of the Airport development areas was evaluated to determine its viability to
accommodate each of the support facility short- and long-term requirements.
The evaluation of the development areas for the six support facility categories is
presented in the following sections.
3.3.1.1
Airline Maintenance & Support Areas
The Airline Maintenance facilities at CLT are located south of existing Runway 5/23
and between Runways 18L/36R and 18C/36C. Airline Maintenance facilities require
aircraft hangars and apron area for aircraft parking and staging. The potential
Airline Maintenance areas are identified in Exhibit 3-3, Airline Maintenance &
Support Development Areas.
Six potential development areas were identified to accommodate the Airline
Maintenance and support facilities. Each site is listed in order of preference for
development of future (relocated/expanded) Airline Maintenance facilities.

Area 1: Provides a centrally located space near the existing Airline
Maintenance and Support facilities. This area provides ample space for both
office and hangar expansion with direct airside access to the airfield.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-2
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL

Areas 2, 3, and 4: Provide only several small spaces for Airline
Maintenance. These areas could not accommodate all of the relocated or
future demand for Airline Maintenance and support but could be used as
space for Airline Maintenance facilities other than AA or for Airline Support
facilities that do not require large building/hangar space. Each area offers
direct airfield and terminal access and is located near the current Airline
Maintenance and support facilities.

Area 5: Provides a nonconsolidated option for an Airline Maintenance and/or
support facility. In the short-term this area is not available due to the
NCANG current location. This area is only viable in the long-term if the
NCANG relocates south of the airfield. This area would also have line-ofsight (LOS) issues from the new ATCT and the proposed east runway in the
long-term, thereby limiting building heights and aircraft parking locations.

Area 6: Provides space directly north of the Runway 23 approach end.
This area is available when Runway 5/23 is decommissioned. This could
result in a phasing issue for the development of new Airline Maintenance
facilities that need to be provided before the runway is decommissioned.
Aircraft jet blast protection would be required from the proposed holdpad
adjacent to this area.
3.3.1.2
Cargo Areas
The current Cargo facilities at CLT are located south of Runway 5/23 and along the
west side of Runway 36R. This area provides direct airside access to the terminals
and aircraft apron area. Cargo areas also require direct access to landside roads
for truck deliveries. As discussed in the requirements analysis, it would be more
efficient to consolidate the Airport’s Cargo facilities, and create a Cargo village for
all Cargo handlers. The potential Cargo areas are identified in Exhibit 3-4, Cargo
Development Areas.
Four potential Cargo areas have been identified.
preference for future Cargo development.
Each site is listed in order of

Area 1: Provides a centrally located space near the existing Cargo facilities
with both airside and landside access. This area requires a new partial
crossfield taxiway to meet the long-term Cargo demand. The area allows for
adequate space for freight forwarders that do not need apron, and would be
located adjacent to the landside roadway network.

Area 2: Provides an area between the existing Cargo facilities that would
need to be reconfigured to add a second Group V taxiway, parallel to Taxiway
C, along the west side of Runway 36R. This reconfiguration would be
necessary. This area would potentially satisfy the short- and mid-term Cargo
development needs, but may not accommodate all of the long-term Cargo
development due to space requirements.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-3
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL

Area 3: Provides a potential nonconsolidated site for a separate Cargo
handler or third party facility. This area offers both landside and airside
access and would require a new complex airside service roadway. The site is
remote from the terminal area, resulting in long travel times to deliver belly
Cargo. This area is not ideal for aviation development requiring a direct
connection to the taxiway system due to significant grade differences,
earthwork, and fill requirements.

Area 4: Provides a potential nonconsolidated site for a separate Cargo
handler or third party facility. This space is only available if the NCANG is
relocated to another site, in the long-term planning period. Therefore, this
site would not meet the short-term need for future Cargo facility space. This
area would also require building height restrictions to avoid line-of-sight
(LOS) issues with the new ATCT and the proposed east runway.
3.3.1.3
General Aviation Areas
The GA facilities at CLT are currently divided into two campuses on the east side of
Runway 18L/36R. GA facilities are typically located separately from the passenger
terminal facilities, but still require airfield and landside access. It is preferred to
keep the GA facilities in a consolidated area on the eastern side of the Airport for
separation from the air carrier operations and ease of access to the Fixed Based
Operator. The potential GA areas are identified in Exhibit 3-5, General Aviation
Development Areas.
Four GA development areas have been identified.
preference for future GA development.
Each site is listed in order of

Area 1: Provides an area to the south of the southern GA campus, just east
of the Bank of America hangars. This area offers adequate space for GA
hangars with access to the airfield through existing GA apron areas. This
area is preferred for short-term GA development due to its minimal impact
on other existing facilities and its connectivity to other GA facilities. This
area would connect to the Bank of America apron area for airfield access.

Area 2: Provides an area adjacent to the north GA campus between the
Coca Cola hangars (north) and the NCANG. This area is not sufficient to
accommodate the hangar space needed to satisfy the short- and long-term
demand. This site would require relocation of the NCANG Officer’s Club
facility.

Area 3: Provides an area north of the Duke Energy GA hangars and
Carolinas Aviation Museum facilities on the northeast side of the airfield.
This site is located on existing Runway 5/23 and would not be available until
Runway 5/23 is decommissioned. This area provides airfield access, but has
limited landside access that would require improvements. In addition, this
area may result in operational conflicts with aircraft using the proposed
eastern holdpad.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-4
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT

FINAL
Area 4: Provides an area that is located on the current NCANG base, east of
Runway 18L/36R. This space is only available if the NCANG is relocated to
another site on the airfield in the long-term planning period, which would not
solve the short-term facility needs. This area would require building height
restrictions to avoid line-of-sight (LOS) issues with the new ATCT and the
proposed east runway.
3.3.1.4
Airport Support Areas
The Airport Support facilities at CLT are the least consolidated of all support
facilities on the airfield. This creates inefficiency in the operation and maintenance
of the Airport. It is preferred to consolidate the Airport Support facilities and to
allow for both airfield and landside access as needed. The potential Airport Support
areas are identified in Exhibit 3-6, Airport Support Development Areas.
Three Airport Support facility sites have been identified. Each site is listed in order
of preference for relocation or future development. In addition, the Airport has
identified a site for relocation of the CLT Center to comply with potential future FAA
RPZ guidelines. This facility would primarily serve as Airport office space.

Area 1: Provides adequate space south of the GA campus on the eastern
side of the airfield. This area would provide airfield access and landside
access to major surrounding roadways. This area is not ideal for other
aviation development requiring a direct connection to the taxiway system
due to significant grade differences, earthwork and fill requirements.

Area 2: Provides an area south of the GA campus on the east side of the
airfield, similar to Area 1. However, this area would not offer a direct airfield
access route for the maintenance equipment. This area could potentially
serve as future expansion to Area 1.

Area 3: Provides an area north of the future Concourse A terminal
expansion. This area does not offer adequate space, and is currently
occupied by Duke Energy. Since, there are no plans at this time for Duke
Energy to relocate, this site will not meet the near-term Airport Support
facility demand. This area does not have direct access to the airfield and
improvement will be difficult to accommodate. A bridge over, or tunnel
under, the Norfolk Southern rail line will need to be developed to provide
airfield access.
3.3.1.5
Catering Areas
The current two Catering facilities at CLT are consolidated and located south of
Runway 5/23. Both of these facilities will be relocated in the near-term when
Runway 5/23 is decommissioned and the future taxiway system is constructed.
The Catering facilities require airfield access for delivery of food and beverages to
aircraft. The Catering facility should also be located within close proximity to the
passenger terminal to provide timely deliveries. The potential Catering areas are
identified in Exhibit 3-7, Catering Development Areas.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-5
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Two potential Catering development sites have been identified. Each site is listed in
order of preference for relocation or future development.

Area 1: Provides adequate space in the southern portion of the airfield
nearest the Cargo facilities. This location offers direct airside access for the
delivery of goods to the aircraft and from the landside for delivery of goods
to the Catering building.

Area 2: Provides an area just north of the future ATCT. This site is slightly
smaller than Area 1 and is further away from the terminal gate area.
This site also provides adequate airside and landside access.
3.3.1.6
Government (CMPD) Areas
The ATCT and NCANG were evaluated in separate studies and their preferred site
locations are shown in the final support facilities plan. The NCARNG and the Civil
Air Patrol facilities were not analyzed they do not operate or support aircraft based
at CLT. Therefore, the CMPD is the only facility evaluated in the alternatives
analysis. The current CMPD location poses safety concerns; it is located in a basin
and will be potentially nestled between two higher elevated runways. This poses a
LOS risk for both aircraft and helicopter pilots. With the addition of the proposed
east runway, the existing site will also result in operational congestion since CMPD
will need to request ATCT permission to cross a runway during takeoff operations.
Proposed CMPD areas are identified in Exhibit 3-8, CMPD Development Areas,
for the future relocation of this facility.
All four potential areas identified for relocation of the CMPD facilities are viable sites
located east of the proposed east runway. This side of the airfield will provide for a
safe landing and takeoff airspace corridor for helicopter operations. The two
southern sites (Areas 1 and 2) are preferred over Areas 3 and 4 due to the size of
the available land and access to both West Boulevard and Billy Graham Parkway
which are two major roadways near the Airport.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-6
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-1
EXISTING SUPPORT FACILITIES LAND USE
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-7
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-2
FUTURE ALTERNATIVES STUDY AREAS
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-8
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-3
AIRLINE MAINTENANCE & SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-9
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-4
CARGO DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-10
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-5
GENERAL AVIATION DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-11
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-6
AIRPORT SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-12
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-7
CATERING DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-13
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-8
CMPD DEVELOPMENT AREAS
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-14
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
3.4
FINAL
ALTERNATIVE SUPPORT FACILITY LAYOUTS
(LEVEL 2)
Various alternative layouts were prepared within the preferred sites identified in
Section 3.3 for further screening and analysis categorized as Level 2. Two major
considerations were taken into account when determining the facility layouts:

Need for the relocation of facilities that will be displaced due to the shortand long-term terminal and airfield expansion

Need for the development of new facilities to meet the short- and long-term
growth identified in the support facility requirements
Detailed facility layouts were developed for each of the six support facility
categories (Airline Maintenance & Support, Cargo, GA, Airport, Support, Catering,
and Government) and are further evaluated and refined in Section 3.5 to determine
the most appropriate layout.
The following criteria were considered when developing the alternatives in the
Level 2 process:





3.4.1
Site location/proximity to existing functions
Operational and Line-of-Sight issues
Maximization of flight line
Functionality (compatibility) with other support facility categories
Ability to accommodate short-term and long-term facility needs
AIRLINE MAINTENANCE & SUPPORT ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the potential development areas identified in Section 3.2.2.1, three
alternatives were developed for the future airline maintenance and support
facilities. Two alternatives depict consolidated facilities on the southwest side of
the existing airline maintenance and support complex while the third alternative
offers a less consolidated option.
The three alternatives are depicted in
Exhibit 3-9, Initial Airline Maintenance and Support Alternatives.
The following considerations were taken into account when developing the three
alternatives:

Located predominantly on south side of the airfield

Consolidated facilities

Designed to accommodate up to Group V aircraft

Provides future facilities in north to south alignment

Provides adequate area for AA Airline Maintenance expansion
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-15
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL

Provides adequate space for other Airline Maintenance facilities that require
aircraft apron

Accommodation of near-term facilities8
The following restrictions were also taken into account when developing the future
Airline Maintenance and support alternative layouts:


3.4.2
Current geometry is not desirable (parallel to Runway 5/23)
Mail-sort facility requires short- and long-term solutions
CARGO ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the potential development areas identified in Section 3.2.2.2, three
alternatives were developed for the future Cargo facilities. All three alternatives
provide consolidated facilities on the southeast side of the existing Cargo complex
and are depicted in Exhibit 3-10, Initial Cargo Alternatives.
The following considerations were taken into account when developing the three
alternatives:

Located predominantly on the south side of the airfield

Consolidated facilities

Designed to accommodate up to Group V aircraft, with Group V apron
taxiway access

Provides adequate area for aircraft apron, truck docking, and employee
parking

Provides adequate landside access route for large delivery trucks and
employees
The following restrictions were also taken into account when developing the future
Cargo alternatives:



8
Requirement for airfield access and aircraft apron space
Land constraints on the south side of the airfield
Functionality (compatibility) with other support facilities
Near-term facilities are facilities needed now and the environmental process has already been
conducted or started on these facilities.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-16
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
3.4.3
FINAL
GENERAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the potential development areas identified in Section 3.2.2.3, three
alternatives were developed for the GA facilities.
They provide consolidated
facilities on the east side of the airfield. These alternatives are depicted in
Exhibit 3-11, Initial General Aviation Alternatives.
The following considerations were taken into account when developing the three
alternatives:





Located on the eastside of the airfield
Consolidated GA facilities
Designed to accommodate up to Group III GA aircraft
Provides adequate space for aircraft hangars, FBO office and storage
Provides adequate landside access
The following restrictions were also taken into account when developing the future
GA alternatives:




3.4.4
ATCT line-of-sight clearance to proposed east runway
Taxiway connections to existing airfield
NCANG relocation in long-term
Topography of site
AIRPORT SUPPORT ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the potential development areas identified in Section 3.2.2.4, three
alternatives were developed for the Airport Support facilities. The first alternative
was proposed to be located northwest of the passenger terminal on the existing
Duke Energy site. However, it was determined that this site would not be available
in the near-term and was eliminated from further consideration. The two remaining
alternatives provide consolidated facilities on the east side of the airfield east of the
Runway 36R end. These alternatives are depicted in Exhibit 3-12, Initial Airport
Support Alternatives.
The following considerations were taken into account when developing the three
alternatives:




Located on the east side of the airfield
Provides airfield access and easily accessible landside access
Provides maintenance, storage, training, and office space to meet demand
Consolidated facilities
The following restrictions were also taken into account when developing the future
Airport Support alternatives:


Requires relocation of existing facilities
Area 3 not available until the long-term
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-17
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
3.4.5
FINAL
CATERING ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the potential development areas identified in Section 3.2.2.5, two
alternatives were developed for the Catering facilities. Both alternatives provide
consolidated facilities on the south side of the airfield, and will require airfield
access to the passenger terminal apron area. These alternatives are depicted in
Exhibit 3-13, Initial Catering Alternatives.
The following considerations were taken into account when developing the three
alternatives:



Airfield access to the passenger terminal and GA ramp areas
Consolidated facility
Provides adequate space for truck docks and employee parking
The following restriction was also taken into account when developing the future
Catering alternatives:

3.4.6
Relocation of existing facilities required due to terminal expansion
GOVERNMENT ALTERNATIVES
Based upon the potential development areas identified in Section 3.2.2.6, three
alternatives were developed for the CMPD facilities, which are currently located
south of the GA campus. These three alternatives are depicted in Exhibit 3-14,
Initial Government Alternatives - CMPD.
The following considerations were taken into account when developing the three
alternatives:

Located predominantly on east side of airfield to avoid airspace conflicts with
commercial aircraft operations

Landside access for tenants and employees

Provides adequate facilities for both helicopter hangar and office/training
space
The following operational safety restrictions were also taken into account when
developing the future Government alternatives:


Avoid sites between runways
Existing Topography
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-18
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
In the Level 2 analysis, alternatives for the NCANG were also defined as a result of
initial findings from a separate study conducted by the Airport.
That study
determined that the facility might need to be relocated in the long-term due to the
development of the proposed east runway.
Two NCANG alternatives were
developed based upon safety considerations and interviews with the NCANG and
Airport staff (see Exhibit 3-15). The following considerations were taken into
account when developing the alternatives:






Required apron space
Compliance with military standards
Ability to accommodate larger aircraft in the future
Consolidated facilities
Provides landside access
Expansion Capability
The following operational safety restrictions were also taken into account when
developing the future Government support alternatives:


ATCT line-of-sight to proposed east runway
Ability to provide a secured site with no shared apron or facilities
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-19
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-20
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-9
INITIAL AIRLINE MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT ALTERNATIVES
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-21
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-10
INITIAL CARGO ALTERNATIVES
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-22
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-11
INITIAL GENERAL AVIATION ALTERNATIVES
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-23
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-12
INITIAL AIRPORT SUPPORT ALTERNATIVES
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-24
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-13
INITIAL CATERING ALTERNATIVES
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-25
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-14
INITIAL GOVERNMENT ALTERNATIVES - CMPD
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-26
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-15
INITIAL GOVERNMENT ALTERNATIVES – NCANG
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-27
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-28
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
3.5
FINAL
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING AND EVALUATION
(LEVEL 3)
After all alternatives were developed and screened in Levels 1 and 2, the
alternatives were reviewed against each other and combined into two integrated
alternatives in Level 3. Some Level 2 alternatives were refined in order to integrate
them properly into cohesive support facilities on the airfield.
Criteria were
developed to evaluate each alternative’s ability to be integrated with others.
These criteria include:




Conflicting development areas (facilities competing for same space)
Consolidation of support facility categories consolidation
Functionality & integration
Operational and safety considerations
A matrix analysis was performed to determine what combination of alternatives
best met the above criteria.
The matrix, Table 3-1, Level 3 Alternatives
Compatibility Matrix, illustrates alternatives that meet the consolidation
objective, alternatives with conflicting development areas and alternatives that
function well together.
The analysis resulted in two integrated alternatives (Integrated Alternatives A
and B), each consisting of one alternative from each support facility category.
The integrated alternatives are presented in Table 3-2, Level 3 Alternatives
Integration Matrix.
3.5.1
INTEGRATED ALTERNATIVE A
Integrated Alternative A presents consolidation of the support facilities to the extent
possible. On the east side, GA is split between two campuses, just as it is today.
Airport Support facilities are consolidated on the southeast side of Runway 36R.
On the south side of the airfield, Airline Maintenance, Cargo, Catering, and the
NCANG are consolidated to accommodate for operational needs. The resulting land
use for Alternative A is found in Exhibit 3-16, Integrated Alternative A Land
Use.
After identifying the land use for Alternative A, the facilities were laid out and
refined to meet integration needs.
These detailed layouts are depicted in
Exhibit 3-17, Integrated Alternative A Layout. On the south side, the Airline
Maintenance and support facilities offer some consolidation of the facilities.
Alternative A maintains the existing Cargo facilities on the southeast side of the
airfield and develops a new Cargo area on the south side of the future ATCT to
satisfy future demand and replacement facilities. GA expands on both the south
and north campuses located on the east side of the airfield with connections to
Taxiway D for airfield access. CMPD is proposed to be relocated adjacent to Billy
Graham Parkway and West Boulevard on the northwest side of the roadway
intersection. The NACNG base is proposed to be relocated south of the existing
West Boulevard alignment with access to the airfield via two connector taxiways.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-29
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
From an airfield perspective, Alternative A depicts two taxiways connecting the
north end of the proposed east runway to the existing airfield to reduce the impact
on the existing GA facilities. Alternative A also offers the opportunity for a new
crossfield taxiway through the south side of the airfield as an alternative route for
Cargo and Airline Maintenance traffic.
This will ease congestion around the
passenger terminal and allow support facilities easy access to the airfield.
3.5.2
INTEGRATED ALTERNATIVE B
Integrated Alternative B presents consolidation of the support facilities to the extent
possible, similar to Alternative A, with differing options for replacement facility
location and areas for growth. GA is split into three campuses in Alternative B.
The north campus is preserved, the south campus is divided due to connecting
taxiways serving the proposed east runway, and a central campus is created where
the NCANG resides today to support long-term growth. While different from
Alternative A, this alternative maintains the GA facilities on the east side of the
Airport. Airport Support is also located on the southeast side of the airfield in this
alternative. On the south side of the airfield, Airline Maintenance, Cargo, Catering,
and the NCANG are consolidated to accommodate for operational needs.
Airline Maintenance is more consolidated in Alternative B than in Alternative A.
Catering is consolidated further south of the Alternative A location. The land use
for Alternative B is found in Exhibit 3-18, Integrated Alternative B Land Use.
After identifying the land use for Alternative B, the facilities were laid out and
refined to meet integration needs.
These detailed layouts are depicted in
Exhibit 3-19, Integrated Alternative B Layout. This alternative redevelops
Cargo on the southeast side of the airfield and includes growth immediately north
of the West Boulevard alignment. GA expands on the three campuses mentioned
above with connections to Taxiway D for airfield access. CMPD is proposed to be
relocated adjacent to Billy Graham Parkway and West Boulevard on the southwest
side of the roadway intersection. The NACNG base is proposed to be relocated
south of the existing West Boulevard alignment with access to the airfield via two
connector taxiways (same as shown in Integrated Alternative A).
From an airfield perspective, this alternative depicts two taxiways positioned
directly through the south GA campus connecting the proposed east runway to the
existing airfield. These taxiways require the relocation of several GA facilities on
the south campus to the existing NCANG site in the long-term. This alternative also
offers the opportunity for a new crossfield taxiway through the south side of the
airfield which would be built in two stages, a mid- and long-term connector,
providing an alternative route for Cargo and Airline Maintenance traffic. This will
ease congestion around the passenger terminal and allow support facilities easy
access to the airfield.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-30
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 3-1
LEVEL 3 ALTERNATIVES COMPATIBILITY MATRIX
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-31
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Table 3-2
LEVEL 3 ALTERNATIVES INTEGRATION MATRIX
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-32
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-16
INTEGRATED ALTERNATIVE A LAND USE
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-33
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-17
INTEGRATED ALTERNATIVE A LAYOUT
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-34
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-18
INTEGRATED ALTERNATIVE B LAND USE
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-35
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-19
INTEGRATED ALTERNATIVE B LAYOUT
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-36
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
3.6
FINAL
SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND
REFINEMENTS
Of the two integrated alternatives, Alternative B was selected as the preferred
alternative.
The land use associated with the preferred alternative after
refinements is shown in Exhibit 3.20, Preferred Integrated Alternative Land
Use. This alternative was incorporated into the updated CLT ALP and is depicted in
detail in Exhibit 3-21, Preferred Integrated Alternative Layout.9 Following the
selection of the preferred alternative in Level 3, an additional refinement process
was performed based upon input from Airport stakeholders10, focusing on the
following parameters:
9
10

Refinement of the Support Facility Requirements: Adjustments to the
facility requirements were based upon updated information about existing
facilities.

Facility Reallocation: Adjustments to the uses of existing facilities to
ensure all facilities were reflected in the proper support category.

Facility Phasing: Evaluation of the phasing of the facilities to determine
which areas were most logical for the short-, mid-, and long-term phasing.

Consideration of Other Support Facilities: Re-evaluation of the aviation
museum site along with the required relocation of the Airport lookout
recreational area that will be removed during construction of the proposed
west runway.

Consideration of Emergency Services: Evaluation of the existing ARFF
facilities to determine the need for additional facilities to serve future
demand.

Refinement of Facility Layouts: Refinements to some of the proposed
facilities to improve efficiency including roadway realignments, such as, the
proposed West Boulevard and connecting roadways.

ALP Refinements: Incorporation of ALP refinements made because of the
ACEP Safety Risk Management (SRM) process.
Support facilities depicted in this exhibit have been added to the 2015 ALP submittal.
This included ALP, SRM, and weekly workload discussions with the client and Airport stakeholders.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-37
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
3.6.1
FINAL
REFINEMENT OF SUPPORT FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Facility requirements were refined based on a feedback from Airport staff and were
incorporated into the preferred support facility alternative. Facility requirements for
Airline Maintenance and support as well as Cargo decreased while GA and Airport
Support increased slightly. These changes can be seen in the integrated preferred
alternative and are also reflected in the final support facility requirements found in
Chapter 2, Support Facility Requirements.
3.6.2
FACILITY REALLOCATION
After discussions with CLT, the Airport had recently reallocated empty Cargo
facilities to Airport Support and other commercial use.
The facilities were
reallocated to the appropriate categories. For example, the Cargo facilities that are
currently being used for Airport Support were reallocated to that category and
accounted for in the future consolidation of those facilities on the southeast side of
the airfield. These adjustments caused some changes to the layouts of future
support facilities presented in the Level 2 analysis.
3.6.3
FACILITY PHASING
The facilities depicted in Integrated Alternative B were further refined once the
alternative was selected as the preferred option. Phasing was adjusted to improve
the use of space and increase the use of existing facilities. For example, all
long-term replacement GA and new GA facilities were consolidated between the
north and south campuses, with the majority of development on the existing
NCANG base. Along with GA, the Cargo facilities were re-evaluated for phasing
since the facility requirement declined. Existing facilities along the Cargo apron
that are currently used for Airport Support can be utilized as Cargo facilities in the
future once Airport Support is consolidated on the east side of the airfield.
Those existing facilities can be used until the parallel taxilane to Taxiway C is
converted into a taxiway. At that time, the Cargo facilities will need to be moved
west to accommodate for Group V aircraft on the Cargo apron. If Cargo carriers
are operating less than Group V aircraft on the apron at those existing facilities,
those facilities will be able to remain due to the reduced apron space needed for
smaller group aircraft.
3.6.4
CONSIDERATION OF OTHER SUPPORT FACILITIES
Other support facilities were taken into consideration once the essential support
facilities were adjusted and placed in their preferred location. It is recommended
that the museum remain in its current location on the airfield. If a tenant requests
use of that facility for aeronautical purposes, the museum may be relocated
adjacent the Airport or off-site. If the museum stays in its current location, it is
proposed that the Airport lookout recreational area be relocated closer to the
museum, off the Runway 23 end once the runway is decommissioned. This is
recommended due to the demolition of the existing airport lookout during the
construction of the proposed west runway.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-38
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
3.6.5
FINAL
CONSIDERATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
Emergency response services at CLT, such as the ARFF, were considered once the
airfield was finalized in the ALP and as the support facilities were developed.
Currently, there are two ARFF stations on the airfield as mentioned in Chapter 1,
Inventory. These two facilities are not expected to serve all five parallel runways,
the terminal area, and support facilities in the future. It is recommended that once
Runway 5/23 is decommissioned and the proposed west runway is underway, a
third ARFF station be constructed and centrally located on the airfield to better
serve the inboard runways and the passenger terminal, as well as meet FAA
required response times mentioned in previous sections. This station would also be
the first response to the growing support facilities on the south side of the Airport
nestled between Runways 18C/36C and 18L/36R. All three stations are projected
to meet ARFF response times to runways in the future. In the preferred support
facilities alternative, the third proposed ARFF station is strategically placed on the
south side of the airfield immediately adjacent the proposed satellite terminal along
the two southern passenger terminal crossfield taxiways.
3.6.6
REFINEMENT OF FACILITY LAYOUTS
Facility layouts were re-evaluated in the preferred alternative to improve efficiency.
This included adding additional parking and area for the CLT Center west of the
proposed facility. This would allow the Airport to expand west in the future, if
necessary. In addition, the proposed NCANG facility was realigned to accommodate
for the Intermodal Phase 3 expansion on the south side. In the previous levels of
refinement, the NCANG was aligned north-south, while in the preferred it was
determined to operate more efficiently in an east-west alignment. Access roads
were also taken into account on the south side with the realignment of West
Boulevard. This realignment will allow for additional Airport expansion on the south
side of the airfield and clear the proposed RPZs. The refinement of the facility
layouts on the south side of the Airport allows for future expansion along the
southernmost proposed crossfield taxiway.
Although there are no proposed
facilities in that area, the airfield access to the crossfield taxiways makes it an ideal
location for support facility placement.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-39
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
3.6.7
FINAL
ALP REFINEMENTS
Following the SRM process, the CLT ALP was re-evaluated and refined.
These refinements were incorporated in the preferred support facilities alternative
for cohesiveness and include the following:

Runway and taxiway realignments to rectify safety and operational issues

Refinements to the terminal and apron layout and phasing.

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) updates to satisfy the FAA memorandum
Interim Guidance on Land Uses Within a Runway Protection Zone.
This included adjustments to land use within the RPZs of the future west
runway, which Resulted in reduction of the arrival and departure lengths of
Runway 1/19 and the relocation of Old Dowd Road on the northwest side of
the runway end. The future east runway will be evaluated for RPZ issues
later in the design process of the development of the runway.

Solutions to potential hazards identified during the Safety Risk Management
meeting with the SRM panel members in October 2015.

Road realignments, which include West Boulevard, roads on the eastside of
the Airport, Old Dowd Road on the north side, and an Airport access road to
the western ARFF station along the existing intermodal area. The West
Boulevard relocation is required because of its conflicting location within the
bounds of the proposed west runway. Its relocation will also accommodate
the Airport’s need to grow on the south side.

NCANG short-term expansion on the northern portion of the ramp and an
additional hangar on the southeast portion of the existing NACANG ramp.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-40
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-20
PREFERRED INTEGRATED ALTERNATIVE LAND USE
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015.
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-41
CHARLOTTE DOUGLAS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
SUPPORT FACILITIES REPORT
FINAL
Exhibit 3-21
PREFERRED INTEGRATED ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT
Source:
Landrum & Brown analysis, 2015
Landrum & Brown
February 2016
Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis
Page 3-42