Talk:Denver International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Airports WikiProject

This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Contents 1 Opening comments 2 Questions about DEN 3 Category:Software engineering disasters 4 Tents 5 any images of the distinctive roof from the outside? 6 Conspiracy Theory Site 7 additions by 67.163.8.43 8 Ted 9 Runway Integrity 10 Destinations? 11 53 or 54 square miles? 12 Conspiracy Theories 13 Storm-proof design? 14 size of airport 15 The Monorail Controversy?

[edit] Opening comments

Living in Denver, I would have to argue with the statement that DIA is 'near' Denver. ;-)

The article is probably a good place to state that, giving the exact distance or whatever. Pakaran 23:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

DIA is closer to where I live in Thornton than it is to metro Denver. Still a 30 minute drive in good traffic (and thank the stars, the traffic is always good.) Incidentally, I think DIA is probably the nicest airport I've ever set foot in, and I've been to Heath Row and Gatwick. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 03:33, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

---

Is there space for any of the fantastic 'conspiracy theory' stuff mentioned here [1], if only in the form of an 'and finally...' section? It goes on and on about how the airport is a mixture of Masonic and Nazi symbolism, shaped like a swastika, with some hideous murals. Is it really a den of evil? Ashley Pomeroy 18:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The conspiracy theory stuff deserves at least a link. DIA was at one point famous amongst certain circles for its alleged Masonic and New World Order motifs. Not to mention the urban legends of vast underground levels.

We would need a reliable source for that, and we don't have one. FCYTravis 06:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

---

"It is also known for a pedestrian bridge connecting the terminal to Concourse A that offers a unique view of planes taxiing directly underneath." Is this still true, London Gatwick Airport also has such a bridge... http://coppermine.luchtzak.be/displayimage.php?pos=-3450

[edit] Questions about DEN

Why didn't they make runways 7 and 8 (25 and 26 the other way) parllel?

A: I believe it is to leave open the oportunity for expansion. Just like the north/south runways, they are actually parallel. Having 4 runways with the same numbers would cause more confusion.

a: Actually, it is because the wind patterns around Denver have a tendency to shift significantly. While that's not a critical failure (crosswind landings are possible), this allows for efficent airfield usage. Also the pinwheel formation allows relativly short taxi times to outlier runways.

[edit] Category:Software engineering disasters

I saw this article listed in Category:Software engineering disasters, but I don't see what disaster occurred. Is it referring to the automated baggage handling problems? --Mrwojo 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Paul 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tents

DIA is famous for the canopy tents ment to resemble the Rockies. Could somebody either take a good picture of the airport from the exterior or locate one? Editor19841 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] any images of the distinctive roof from the outside?

When I think of the denver airport, I think of the distinctive white roof, and it's a pity there aren't any pictures of it in the article.

here are some creative commons pictures of the denver airport: http://flickr.com/search/?q=denver+airport&l=cc&s=int

I like this one: http://flickr.com/photos/ishmaelo/26056907/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.105.159.32 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 2006 July 9.

I do like waiting at midnight although it might need to be cropped a bit. I've also got a dialogue going with the rights owner of [2] to see if we can get a GFDL or CC license to it. —Cliffb 06:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theory Site

Should this conspiracy theory site [3] really be included? It contains so many basic factual errors about the airport that it doesn't seem right to direct people there implying that what the site says is true. ——The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avsfan1321 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 2006 July 17.

I think both of them should go specifically these two. —Cliffb 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Project Problems with the Denver Airport Baggage Handling System (in PDF format), from a Middlesex University website
• Anomalies-Unlimited discussion of the DIA's design, construction and aesthetic oddities.

Thought about this more and Decided to Be Bold and remove these two links. —Cliffb 17:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I made a comment on this below. I believe there should be some mention of this and links to reputable sites. I don't have time to research right now which sites have accurate info, but I will mention that as a Masonic/Illuminati conspiracy theorist, nothing pains me more than a crackpot that 'bends' bends the truth to their own advantage. These nutjobs are the ones that give us the terrible reputation that most of us don't deserve. I simply wanted to mention at this point that we should bring back these links if we can find decent ones. MiracleMat 08:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] additions by 67.163.8.43

I think the additions by 67.163.8.43 should be reverted -- they're far too detailed and go beyond the scope of the article, and disrupt the flow. —Cliffb 07:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted, and brought the new category forward. —Cliffb 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A more detailed Denver Int. Airport conspiracy theory site : [4]

[edit] Ted

I corrected an inaccuracy in the opening paragraphs in regard to Ted, the discount airline subsidiary of United. In the previous version, Denver was noted as a minor hub for Ted. While thie is accurate from the standpoint of Ted being a minor airline, it is inaccurate from the standpoint of Hub "ranking". DIA is the primary hub for Ted, with the most flights and connections going through DIA. Denver is not a secondary or minor Hub for Ted. If anyone disagrees, I invite them to check the corporate website, www.ted.com. --Tbkflav 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

www.flyted.com —Cliffb 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks..my bad. --Tbkflav 04:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Runway Integrity

I have added a new section to the article about DIA's runway/taxiway integrity. According to a recent Denver Rocky Mountain News article, the concrete used in these runways is sub-par, either due to intentional dilution by the contractor or due to the natural freeze/thaw cycle. I have tried to be detailed...so if anyone has anything to add or subtract please post it here and their reasoning...if someone finds something new I would love to see it! The article can be found on pg 21A of the July 15th Rocky Mountain News. If you look online, you can find it at *[5]. You will need to search for July 15th and for Denver International Airport Runways. The article will cost $2.95 to read, but a free snippet is available. --Tbkflav 04:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

       This issue seems to be disappearing and doesn't even have any awareness inside of the Denver community. Should this information still be in the article?

--Jprismon 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Destinations?

Are they really all that necessary? I just think they clutter the article.. Thoughts? EnsRedShirt 06:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that the destinations are a vital part of the article. I can see why you think that they clutter the article, especially at DEN when you have both FFT and UAL's long list of destinations, but I think that they should be included because they are a "fact of the airport." Sox23 03:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that they should stay. However, if you want them removed, I'd recommend bringing it up at the Wikiproject. DB (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 53 or 54 square miles?

The intro uses both. Which is it? Vegaswikian 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's 53 square miles according to DIA's website (http://www.flydenver.com/guide/index.asp). I also made the change in the article. Sox23 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Theories

There doesn't seem to be any mention on this page of the various conspiracy theories about the airport. While they may all be junk they are noteable in and of themselves and widely repeated. Could they at least be stated somewhere on the page and, if they contain falsehoods have the counterarguments placed in the section too? (I understand why external links to cooky web pages have been removed but their overwhelming factual inaccuracy isn't going to go away if we simply ignore what they say). 193.129.65.37 12:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a mention. I came to this page from the New World Order (conspiracy) Wikipedia page which mentions the theory and links to this page. There is also a link to this page from the general Conspiracy Theory Wikipedia entry. So there ought to be some mention here. I found a link debunking the theories though, and it seems to be a Freemason site: http://www.masonicinfo.com/denver.htm. I'm not going to just add this in myself though, as there may be a good reason to dissent. Bokononist 02:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)bokononist

Absolutely there should be a mention in this article on the Masonic murals and manny other obscurities of this airport that was built surrounding considerable controversy. Everything about the airport, it's location, hidden underground base and events conected to this airport are suspect. I realize that this may seem POV, which is why I am writing this here now to see what others have to say. I looked up this article specifically to see what was listed about these things and (on a personal note) I actually booked a layover in DIA just to see for myself what some people have called "horrific". MiracleMat 08:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Storm-proof design?

In the article Blizzard stops travelers cold at CNN.com, I read that DIA supposedly had something in its original design to make it "storm-proof". What was that? Can it be cited and placed in the article? Will (Talk - contribs) 09:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly the runways at DIA (unlike its predecessor Stapleton International Airport) were far enough apart that the airport would never need to close because of weather. The publicity at the time said that the closely spaced runways at Stapleton were to blame for its intermittent closures. Never, however, is a mighty big word. DIA may close less frequently than Stapleton did, but two feet of snow will still close it. Even if, somehow, the airport runways could still be used, the airport would be closed in practice because of the condition of Pena Boulevard. Paul 01:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the rest of Denver. It's kind of useless if Pena and the main highways are open but the local roads leading home are impassable, though I suppose you could at least stay at a hotel and not at DIA. Of course, this only applies to people who are going to or from Denver, not simply changing flights. I read the airport cleared something like 4 million cubic feet of snow after the first storm; who could keep up with that kind of snow volume in a 24 hour period? --BetaCentauri 04:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The snowproof label was a bit out of context. The entire reason for the airport originally was since Stapleton's runways were to close together to allow simultaneous ILS approach from multiple planes under foul weather. That meant that any snowstorm in Denver had the same effect as last weeks storm, and two weeks ago blizzard had on the overall airline traffic structure in the US. There are some plans to help winterize the airport a bit better, but for the most part, there is only so much you can do to offset 10 year storms like what we had a few weeks ago. The other issue is off course Pena Blvd which is far more vulnerable to bad weather then the airport is. As far as hotels go, beleive me that the conditions where bad enough here that you didn't get into a car unless it was a humvee. I hope denver will re-examine that plan to build a hotel directly attached to the airport, or that the light rail line makes these kind of problems less severe. Jprismon 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keeping DIA open would at least mean that you can keep planes coming and going. When flights couldn't connect through Denver, the delays rippled around the nation (and maybe even internationally). So those planes would be mostly empty compared to the schedule. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Suppose runways, taxiways, and apron all had a built-in heating system. All you need are a series of deep holes you put a closed loop of plumbing down into filled with anti-freeze and a few pumps to send it under the pavement. By the time you get more than 20 feet down (in non-tundra areas), the ground is plenty warm enough to melt snow and ice. Will (Talk - contribs) 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] size of airport

Here, it says that DIA is the 2nd largest airport in terms of size in the world, but on King Fahd International Airport's page, the 2nd largest is supposedly Montréal-Mirabel International Airport. Which is correct? Gittinsj 04:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Gittinsj

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport is bigger than DIA, but no longer handles passenger traffic, so it depends on what you mean by "2nd largest". I assume the size rankings don't include military airbases either. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

King Khalid International Airport is actually bigger than DIA as well, so DIA is actually the 4th biggest in the world in terms of land area. MEA707 04:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Monorail Controversy?

The only place the monorail controversy exists is in the minds of its supporters looking for free publicity. In several years there will be light rail connecting DIA with most of the Denver area, making the monorail redundant for that stretch. Thus, if a monorail is built to the ski resorts it won't originate from the airport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.241.41.217 (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

DIA is going to get heavy-rail, not light-rail. MEA707 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Regardless, the airport rail link won't be monorail and therefore this section is irrelevant. I have removed it. --BetaCentauri 05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)