arche_757

I should hope they could make this plot more pedestrian friendly... but I doubt they will. A shame if they can't blend in with the neighborhood.

That is the skyline district... but you CAN'T see the skyline! Just the buildings. I was being overly dramatic for the sake of being dramatic. I disagree about Montrose. Perhaps the area hasn't changed at all? I don't know how to explain it, but it just feels different to me. And I used to be an inner looper, so my views are on visiting that area maybe once a month? Perhaps I'm missing something? To sum up: I think the area "feels" different than it used to. That in part is due to the micro-neighborhoods in/around Montrose taking on stronger identities of their own.

And that's why these things are sprinklered! Thankfully that wasn't occupied (though presumably if it were occupied it wouldn't have burned like that).

I think the area is losing its identity...a little (as a neighborhood). Just visiting the area it no longer has that "vibe" it used to (just 4 or so years ago). Perhaps that's a good thing? I think Montose stood out before because it was a district surrounded by mostly residentia,l and now it is being encroached on by other neighborhoods/districts that have expanded. Midtown is its own unique area, as is Upper Kirby as well. I also feel that Montrose (is now) a large neighborhood with seperate enclaves throughout. Lower Westheimer is Montrose, but it is also Lower Westheimer. The Menil and St Thomas are in the Montrose neighborhood, but they are seperate and their own micro-neighborhood. And the area along West Dallas is clearly NOT in Montrose to me. That's more of an extension of River Oaks and Midtown - in fact that may even extend further south to West Gray? I'll also add that the area along Allen Parkway has always felt like a district to me - the whole way across from Shephard to I-45. I've always thought of that area as the "Skyline District" or something? Since you can actually SEE the skyline unlike the poorly named area in Downtown made of 1970s modernism boxes.

Good to see, but unfortunate that its in Baybrook and not located a little further south in League City. Baybrook is a nightmare of traffic (like many large malls tend to be these days). I'm guessing this area is populated enough for 1-2 more of these "pedestrian oriented" sort of shopping centers. One down the way in League City and maybe one over by Kemah/Seabrook?

Money + Architectural Talent. Not all firms are created equal.

But the idea that Southwest - which is the largest airlines working ONLY in the US - isn't a threat to United/AA/Delta is not accurate. Southwest, while lacking the "prestige" of having Auckland, Tokyo, Munich etc as destenations has carved out a loyal following and besides that is often the cheapest airlines. They may not fly 787s/777s/767s/A380s/A350s but they don't need to for the service and destinations they serve. And lets face it - unless you fly first class or business class int'l you aren't really flying comfortably anyway - no matter the airlines. I'm tall and airliners are jokingly uncomfortable. The food sucks. The drinks are well... nothing special. The one item that I don't like about Southwest is the lack of being able to purchase a seat assignment from the get-go. That's annoying. Last time I flew I bought the tickets months in advance (3 to be exact) as I knew I was going no matter what - despite having those tickets well in advance of probably 60-70% of the other passengers I still missed checking in and getting a reasonable seat. Lets face it - this is Not about Southwest or United (per say) but about the new terminal D and additional int'l airlines flying to-from Houston.

I think we can all admit: This project is fine. Is it 609 Main? No. We like it well enough. But its hardly the only project in town, therefore it gets far less attention than it otherwise would.

My usual time spent on this website is during work... Therefore I don't really have the time to watch the videos (sorry). My assumption that "...the design will only meet current capacity needs..." is based on my observations of different building types in my years working in the design/construction industry. Routine is to build JUST what you need for the immediate future (like next years needs - or maybe very forward thinking projects will build for 2-3 years down the road). Very rare is the project that includes extra space to be utilized (assuming current growth 10 years later). Granted that's the easiest way to get the money for construction, though given that airports can grow so quickly it seems foolish to not just build a 20 or so gate Int'l terminal now - if the extra gates aren't used immediately by large trans-Pacific/Atlantic capable planes - then smaller airliners can dock there in the interim. So in a nutshell: Does a new Int'l Terminal make sense at IAH? Yes. Should the plans be flexible enough that additional space can be built out as the project nears milestones? Yes. Will the project likely be designed like that? Probably not. When completed will said terminal actually be plenty big for additional growth and allow the users (airlines) a chance to spread additional flights to said terminal? Probably not. So, what will happen? Well, we will revisit the need for a new terminal after a few years of heavy use and/or addition onto terminal that should have been budgeted/built in the first place.

When its finished people will grow to like it. Its not ground breaking - neither was/is Studio Gang's Chicago iteration of this design type. I think its an ok design, never was great. At least that's my opinion. And honestly, I think people are liking the other designs sprouting up around town more and hence this design is not as enjoyable any more.

^What?! Sure, yeah... Urbannizer is the only person on here capable of knowing anything going on in this city of 6+ million.

I just generally like their customer service... but yes as something of an airliner nut (who didn't know WN = SWA!) I love the new generation launch planes. Will be nice to get the new 737s in service alongside the 787s.

And historically Southwest has done better than United. The fleet isn't full of new launch planes (like the yet unfinished A351 or B789) but its a resonable airlines.

As of February 2014, the Southwest Airlines fleet consists of the following aircraft. The average fleet age is 11.3 years. Fleet: Aircraft In Service Orders Options Passengers Notes Boeing 737 MAX 7 — 30 — TBA Scheduled to enter service in 2019 Boeing 737 MAX 8 — 170 191 TBA Scheduled to enter service in 2017 Boeing 737-300 122 — — 137143 Some retrofitted with electronic flight decks In process of being retired Boeing 737-500 15 — — 122 In process of being retired Boeing 737-700 393 52 36 143 Options convertible to -800 series. Boeing 737-800 53 64 — 175 All to be retrofitted with Split Scimitar Winglets Total 583(S) 318(Or) 227(Op) Why the disdain of Southwest? Its a locally run/owned airline unlike United.

Southwest does have cargo. And they do have some older planes. United flies a lot of newer aircraft compared to most of the other legacy carriers in the US. Quality, but that's from Continental and not the old United. SWA is investing in the nextGEN 737s (I think they are the launch customer). So they'll be getting a new fleet of planes and are currently buying planes from Boeing at a more continual rate than any other US airlines (at least last time I looked at the numbers in Airliner world).

Southwest can't fly to Brazil, Chile or Argentina with the current crop of airliners they have. Nor would anyone want to have a 6-9 hour flight in one of their 737s! I wouldn't! SWA flying from 5 gates to Central America from one airport won't be a huge blow to United. SWA flying from: Houston, Atlanta, New Orleans, Miami, Tampa etc. to Latin America would be a problem. And yes - I figured Emirates (or some other such government owned airline) was the wealthiest. Southwest must be among the top private airlines though. No doubt. And Dubai's airport is amazing. Never been, but the expansive terminal and the ability to almost accomodate any widebody at nearly every gate is impressive. Not that I ever have an interest in flying over there (don't like hot/dry weather).

Yeah I looked it up. Seems odd that SWA wouldn't work, but I guess they need a two-digit code? Still really odd. And since this isn't an aviation forum perhaps we should drop some of the formal names since its confusing? That said, I don't think I see SWA using widebody aircraft unless it explores flying international (eg: Europe/Asia/South America) beyond what it is able to do with the current nextgen 737s. Doesn't seem like they would start now after all these years of using the 737s. Besides that, they're the largest and most profitable airline in the country (presumably one of the top 3-4 in the world?) and have done quite well just being what they are - a "low cost" airline that flies to a lot of cities. It is good to see the work moving from proposed to planned to under construction. IAH is a decent enough airport, but there are parts of it that need work.

Who is WN?

SWA won't really affect UA at IAH. Some fares will change to places like Cozumel, Cancun etc but that's good. United still flies further and to many different other airports than SWA. Besides that United really needn't worry about SWA until that airlines starts ordering wide-bodied planes... AA up north still flies to more Latin American destinations than any other airline - that's the primary competition (of course AA is always seemingly in bankruptcy!) I still think its odd that IAH just doesn't go ahead and build a big new terminal over there near that east/west runway and those dumpy looking world flags statues and be done with it. Build new. Tear down/renovate Terminal D into United's widebody/int'l gates and be done with it. Instead they're dragging out the process 7 years and not greatly expanding anything in the interim. Seems like it will be a lot of headache for international passengers on other airlines out of IAH?

Hobby serves just Southwest.. currently. IAH's new international terminal will presumably NOT serve much of United's int'l traffic out of Houston (I didn't watch the videos). It seems it will replace Terminal D and serve as the gates for BA, Lufthansa, KLM/Air France (one airline now), Singapore, Korean, Emirates, Qatar, Turkish, China and maybe some of the Mexican airlines? Air Canada flies out of A or B in express jets only - and only to Toronto (and maybe Calgary). I would expect they might expand service to include larger 737s at some point but who knows? United flies out of whichever gates at Terminals C & E can handle wide-bodied aircraft. 777s and 767s routinely dock at Terminal C and I've flown international out of E on United. I assume the long range plans are for United to build a new Terminal C with more capacity for larger aircraft (like E) and more gates in longer/more linear terminals - but I'm just talking and haven't a clue. Good to see them expanding here rather than contracting (which I figured they wouldn't). If anything Denver would be the major airport to see service contraction. Lack of population and increased range from small bodied planes seems to make that stop (as a HUGE airport) less practical. Of course Denver serves a touristee area during ski season.

That is an amazingly lengthy timeline! 6 years! 7 total to completion from today! I'm always amazed at airport planning. The overall masterplans are quite in keeping with forecasted growth, the individual projects that make it to fruition are not. So this terminal will basically be large enough to handle the current capacity when its done in 7 years! Not to mention the fact there may be additional carriers working out of IAH at that time (adding need for additional capacity). But like someone else pointed out, I'll let Mario who runs the show (and his team) work on the logistics/costs/projections and just assume they must know what they are doing.

And I should add: Freescale Semiconducters is a Texas based company. The employees were Malaysian and Chinese who were supposedly on that flight. No company in the world that produces high-tech/sensitive equipment would let 20 top level employees fly together on one plane over that kind of airspace. The workers were probably lower level and less important than all the nuts out there would think. Besides that, they would have flown a better airlines - Singapore or chartered a jet. Not fly Malaysian Air! Besides, don't you think if the US wanted to capture those men/women they could have done that without any trouble? Oh - I know! This is a live test of a new stealth capable system that Freescale deployed in a third world country with third world workers on a third world airlines! We sure did fool those third world radars!!! Again. Beyond absurd. And Malaysia is hardly a consiquential country in the grand scheme of things. Third world with a living monarchy that is archaic and being proven that this sort of single minor inccident is way beyond their capabilities. What could the "internal gangsters of the US government" be trying to hide? I mean if any thing big was needed on the world stage for any sort of major distraction I'd say Putin and Russia are surely pulling that off. Talk about a far-far-far-far more important topic to theorize over.

Responding directly to Democide... Personally I think people believe our government is far more powerful/capable than it actually is. Too many Bourne movies. Besides that particular article points to the fact the US is trying to strain the relationship of China and Malaysia... by capturing and killing an airliner full of Chinese and Malaysian people!?! How absurd. Beyond absurd. Imagine for 1 second the blow-back the US would recieve from the whole WORLD if this was actually the truth and it came to light? We would be enemy number 1. And at a time when we need strong relations with our allies to face the ever growing (and more more threatening) Russian menace. Reality is the US already controls much of the world. What would we need to do control things further? Why would this plane need to be captured? Seems rediculous.

Then what do you think lockmat? I'm curious. I would think that IF the pilot/copilot decided to commit suicide they went to an awful lot of trouble to do so. Why fly for 7 hours? Why turn off the beacons and other alerting devices? Seems beyond odd to go to such a great length. And IF one of them decided to do that why on earth would they wish to harm all those other people? (i'm speaking just of the idea of suicide - not of that idea as some political means or expression or act of terror).

I love how big of a deal everyone makes over preliminary stuff on this forum! You guys (I know everyone is excited and loves to see Houston construction updates/proposals etc. So do I!) but just relax a minute or two and wait to see what the actual renderings will be when they are formally announced as the "X Y Z Terminal at George Bush Intercontinental Airport" at a later date. My best guess of the two we can see - the first one is the terminus of on wing of the new terminal. The other rendering is of a commons area for waiting passengers. And my guess would be that if Terminal D is to be replaced, they would probably add 4-6 new gates to the original size of that old terminal. So we would be looking at what? 14-16 or so gates? About in line with what the worlds busiest in Atlanta did. Terminal F there has 14 gates.