Talk:George Bush Intercontinental Airport/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cargo airlines

The cargo list is full of errors and nothing more than just a copy/paste of the Houston airport websites. The problem is it includes 1) passenger airlines' cargo divisions, which are not actual airlines (except for Northwest Cargo) 2) irregular operators that do not operated scheduled service and only operate on demand and 3) codeshare airlines.

Removed: Cargo Airlines

   * American Airlines Cargo - not an airline
   * Air Canada Cargo - not an airline
   * Alitalia Cargo - does not fly to Houston [1]
   * America West Cargo - not an airline
   * Antonov Cargo - irregular operations; does not fly scheduled services
   * British Airways World Cargo - not an airline
   * CARGO TACA - not an airline
   * Continental Airlines Cargo - not an airline
   * Delta Air Lines Cargo - not an airline
   * Frontier Airlines Cargo - not an airline
   * JALCARGO - does not fly to Houston [2]
   * KLM Cargo - does not fly dedicated cargo to Houston[3]
   * LAN Chile Cargo - does not fly to Houston
   * Northwest Airlines Cargo - does not fly dedicated cargo flights to Houston
   * Polet Air Company - does not operated scheduledcargo flights
   * Saudi Arabian Airlines Cargo - does not fly to Houston [4]
   * Southwest Airlines Cargo - not a cargo airline
   * US Airways Cargo - not a cargo airline
   * US Postal Service - not a cargo airline
   * United Airlines Cargo - not a cargo airline
   * Varig Logistica - does not fly to Houston [5]
   * Volga-Dnepr - does not operate scheduled flights

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

who is posting this? seriously, sign your name. anyways, these all do have some sort of service to IAH. i beleive UPS, DHL are cargo. saudi airlines (did you actually click on the time schedule page???), KLM (747combi,) air canada cargo (real airlines), antonov, british airways world cargo, cargo taca, continental airlines, and so forth may not ALL have jets flying, but due use others or hold them in their cargo palets. go to go to photos, then click on IAH. there are photos discrediting your claims. Urban909

How arrogant can you be? Check the freakin' links. Those airlines DO NOT FLY TO HOUSTON. Simple as that. Air Canada Cargo is a real airline, but they don't fly to Houston. They fly passenger planes to Houston, and "Air Canada Cargo" uses the cargo bay. There is no such thing as Continental Airlines cargo as an independent airline. Just because they exist as a division of an airline does not make them an airline, and to make it standard with all other airport entries, they are not to be listed. Also, just because there are photos on airliners means nothing. That just means certain airlines (like Saudi Arabian Airlines Cargo) used to fly there. Check the links for proof that those airlines do not fly to Houston. These lists are for airlines that fly their physical planes to the airport, not airlines that have cargo agreements. KLM Cargo is a seperate airline from KLM Royal Dutch with it's own cargo fleet. None of those planes fly to Houston. Therefore, KLM Cargo does not fly to Houston. Simple as that. If we were to add "in one way or another" claim to passenger airlines, then just about every major airline in the world would be "flying to Houston" (and every other airport) because of codeshares.

sorry, who is writting this? i dont respond to IP numbers and i dont repsond to those that can't back their claims with hard proof. i am going by the list on HAS website. did you notice and an-124 in the picture sections by the way? interesting that it was POLET cargo. do you even know what an an-124 is?Urban909

Yes, I know what an AN-124. Did you notice the pictures of it at OTHER airports too? Or did you just ignore those? Do you even know what Polet does? They are a cargo airline that operates emergency cargo services for maintence. For example, if a British Airways 747-400 has engine trouble and needs a new, heavy part in Houston, Polet will ship the part to Houston from wherever it needs to come from. The Houston airport site includes CODESHARES and passenger airlines' cargo divisions, which are NOT actual airlines. Try looking for an American Airlines cargo plane. Doesn't exist. And the links provided in the above list of corrections makes it VERY clear that Alitalia Cargo, Saudi Arabain Cargo, etc. no longer fly to Houston. Thatthat 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

For more on how a cargo airline list looks like, check out entries for O'Hare or Miami. Both American Airlines hubs. American Airlines is nowhere to be found on the cargo list, because American Airlines Cargo is not an airline. They are a sales division that sells cargo space on American Airlines passenger flights. Polet Airlines, despite being a frequent visitor to MIA and ORD, is not on the list. They are a charter airline with no destinations. They fly on-demand where customers needs them to go.Thatthat 00:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

yes as Postoak suggested, subdividing would be better. oh and [6] and to keep it all nice and neat [7] Urban909

The list is still wrong and needs to be correct. The list on Houston airport's website is of airlines that offer their services at IAH, not nessecarily airlines that fly there. Half those airlines are not even airlines, and it has been proven through various links referenced above that many of those airlines do not fly to Houston. American Airlines Cargo, British Airways Cargo, etc. are not airlines! They are sales divisons. And the US Postal Service doesn't even own or operate any airplanes! Alitalia Cargo and LAN Cargo, among others, clearly do not fly to Houston Airport, they codeshare (LAN codeshares with Lufthansa Cargo and on American Airlines passenger flihgts). Thatthat 22:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The section header was changed from Cargo airlines to Cargo services. Because of this, the list before you changed it was accurate. The discussion is to rework the section to clarify true cargo airlines, services, codeshare, etc. Please discuss here before changing the article. Postoak 22:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, first, please help me to categorize each entry the can provide direct/indirect service to IAH by

(1) cargo only airline (2) codeshare arrangement (3) indirect service (4)not applicable.

Then we can agree to what should actually be listed in the article. Thanks Postoak 23:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

well, what about skyteam cargo? that is why it says these airlines/cargo services fly to IAH, but do not bring in their own equipment.Urban909

PIA suspension

i think the reason they are flying to o'hare, etc, is because they are using the 777, which has not been banned in the UK. the 747combi has, which flies to IAH. now, i had wondered the same thing, and i contacted HAS. Molly Waits wrote back saying that PIA and CI (i asked about both) have not given any indication that they will be dropping the route. if you look at the numbers, it looks as if they are performing worse then the previous year. its only due to restructuring and reducing flights. if anyone has any real info. about this that goes above HAS then please present it. Urban909


There is clearly confusion about Privatair. This is not a charter operation. KLM wetleases an aircraft that is operaed by Privatair to fly an all-business class Houston-Amsterdam scheduled flight that is bookable on any GDS system, KLM's website, Travelocity, etc. It is not a charter flight. More info: [[8]]

please go to privatair's wikipeida page. what does the first line say? "PrivatAir is an airline based in Geneva, Switzerland, specializing in scheduled and charter flights using mid-sized, long-range, all premium class jets".[9] Urban909

What part of "scheduled and charter flights" do you not understand? Take a look at Newark airport's page. PrivatAir also flies for Lufthansa. Look how it is listed. That is how it needs to be listed for Houston.

Also, for more proof, go to the Amadeus GDS booking system [10]. This reservation system is for scheduled flights only. Search for flights between Houston and Amsterdam, and there you'll find it as a KLM flight operated by PrivatAir. (just don't search for a Saturday date, because the flight does not operate on Saturdays; and search for a date after January 3rd, since the flight is currently suspended because of pretty much no business demand during the holidays). Click on "KL 664" OP, that's the flight.

that will be exceptable, seeing that other privitair destinations have it listed such. but as a future warning, once a tag has been placed saying "disputed, or refrecences neeeded" you cannot just remove it. its permanent and stays until resolved. oh and one last thing, your argument for this was that privatair was not a charter airline which it is. cheers.Urban909

Future Service

The quote "Currently the Houston Airport System (HAS) is negotiating future services with international-based carriers including Air India, Virgin Nigeria, Emirates Airline, Qatar Airways, Korean Air and Asiana Airlines. These airlines have all expressed interest in adding Houston to their networks. [5]" should be removed. The "source" is empty, and Wikipedia is not here to present speculation.

the "source" is from HAS system. i do believe they are pretty on top of new carriers wanting to add IAH to their networks. however, that link for some reason is not working. Urban909

Direct versus Non-stop

The difference between direct and non-stop flights must be clarified. It is very misleading. TACA does not fly Houston-San Pedro Sula or Houston-San Salvador non-stop. China Airlines' flights to Taipei stop in Seattle; British Airways to Heathrow stops in Detroit; Continental's "flight" to Guam involves a change of plane in Honolulu, flight to Rio de Janeiro stops in Sao Paulo.

this has already been decided, if you care to scroll down an earlier discussion about FINAL destinations. you cannot, for example, book a flight on CI from IAH-SEA, PIA from IAH-MAN, or BA from IAH-DTW. and sign your name, or rather, create a user name and sign. it gives you some credibility. Urban909

Intergalactic nickname

I have heard this quite a bit. Type "Houston Intergalactic Airport" into Google and you'll get 40,000+ hits. An old NY Times article even mentions it. I think it adds local character. The Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport article includes a humorous joke in their opening paragraph. I tried to find the most appropriate place in the article, but if you believe it's more appropriate elsewhere, that's fine.

I apologize about the problems yesterday. Evidently, according to HawkerTyphoon, there's some problem with FireFox and the Google Toolbar blowing away content during the edit process, so I redid it in IE.

BTW, the overall quality of this article is excellent. Very impressed. I am curious where the 221 destinations number came from, as Continental says 183 on their profile, and I'd have trouble coming up with 38 non-Continental destinations (maybe it's the nonstop vs. direct difference? And CAL has a lot of directs thru Newark?). If there's a reference site, I'd love to know what it is.

again i have never heard of that. if thats the case, its better to delete, then source. furthermore, it is usually deleted or changed before it is finalized with other people discussing this. its nothing personal, just the way it works. and if there is a general agreement, then its put in. cheers. oh and i found this in the NY Times: [11]

"In 1969, when the first flights touched down at brand-new Houston Intercontinental Airport, the futuristic sparkle of its two terminal buildings seemed to express the brave-new-world outlook with which Houston faced the future. Nowhere in the South or Southwest was there anything to match the spaciousness and scale of the new airport carved out of 8,000 acres of piney woods 22 miles north of downtown. But, as the 1970's rushed by, as Houston was overwhelmed by growth, and as grander airports opened near Dallas and Atlanta, Houston Intercontinental began to seem not just ordinary but even a little dog-eared. Some cynics began sarcastically calling it Houston Interplanetary and, finally, Houston Intergalactic.

notice the bold words. doesn't seem like a compliment to the airport.Urban909

That story is from 1981. I think it has a much more positive connotation today. But it's hard to argue with the Google hits that it does exist, is widespread, and deserves mention somewhere in the article. I will put the line here, and hopefully some agreement can be reached and it will be inserted by somebody somewhere in the article. I really don't care about the wording or the location, I just think it deserves mention.

"It is often referred to as "Intergalactic" by locals, connotating its large size, extensive global flights, and Houston's NASA connection with the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center."

the google hits i got are from random blogs, bead shows, a triathlon and so forth. i dont see where you are gettting this from on google..Urban909

Regarding it being referred to that by locals, I'm from Houston and not only have I never heard that but I would never use it! But that's just one Houstonian's opinion. 19:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Intercontinental vs. International

Why is it called Intercontinental rather than International airport? Because it sounds cooler or for a real reason?

  • Probably because Houston International Airport was the name of Hobby Airport at one point and they wanted to avoid confusion. Souperman 08:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Where in the article does Aramco Associated Company fit, if any? - Eagleamn 00:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


should manchester be listed as a stop? for china airlines and british airways, seattle and chicago (heathrow flight) are not mentioned. should the final destinations, ie, the end of the flight be mentioned (only lahore or karachi). currently, a person that has a pakistan visa/passport may not be able to do round trip from IAH to MAN. plus, even though the site has says you can do a round trip ticket on PK to MAN from IAH might not mean you can. their website has has massive problems with bookings, as was the cancellation of a direct flight, not through manchester, but straight to NYC. It was cancelled do to security reason...

"The US Homeland Security, expressing its security concerns, has not permitted PIA to bring its nonstop flight to New York, sources in PIA informed Pakistan's The Nation newspaper. PIA flight Pk-711 is scheduled to fly to New York non-stop today. It is interesting to note that the route of PIA flight PK-721 leaving Lahore for New York last Sunday was changed at the eleventh hour due to unknown reasons. A delegation comprising officials from US main security agencies including Home Land Security and Traffic Safety Authority visited Pakistan recently and expressed their security concerns over the prevalent security measures at various International Airports.

The US security officials termed the security environment at Karachi and Islamabad Airports as worst where they believed that many influentials got away without security search and checks. They also said in the report that there were many entrance points on these airports. It is interesting to note that PIA announced its flight to New York without prior permission from the host country.

According to rules every airline was bound to seek prior permission to change the route from the country concerned. As per Immigration laws, Pakistanis travelling to US on transit flight and holding green cards issued before 1998 were required to get transit visa from UK Embassy in Pakistan, which required a week to get transit visa. Since PIA was repeatedly asking its passengers through press that PIA flight was operating non stop from Pakistan to New York it meant the said passengers were not required to get transit visa.

Now as the US authorities have refused to allow the PIA to bring its flight direct to New York those possessing green cards would have to manage their transit visas which was not possible for them to manage within limited time. Ultimately they would be off loaded at the Lahore Airport. PIA can fly nonstop from USA to Pakistan but not from Pakistan to USA."

Source : Urban909

For China Airlines and British Airways, SEA (for CI) and ORD (for BA) are not mentioned because these are domestic legs from IAH. CI and BA has no rights to transport domestic passengers between IAH to SEA and ORD respectively. But for IAH-MAN, this is not domestic. But then, there you have the issue with security. If this becomes a permanent matter (the fact that people cannot (dis)embark at MAN, then indeed, MAN should not be listed. Elektrik Blue 82 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

yes i am aware of the fact that you cannot disembark on china airlines and british airways. awhile back there was this debate about "via seattle or via chicago or via manchester". it seemed to be concluded that only the final destination of the flights should be mentioned. but, if it comes down to the fact that you can do a round trip with PK to MAN, and proved in a way other than the jacked up website, then i agree. it just seemed that this stupid debate over "via" was finally over with and don't want to have another debate over this. in fact, wikipedia's slogan should be "fierce debate over miniscule matters that take up your time and probablly shouldn't be debated anyways" or something like that... Urban909

You're right. The PIA website sometimes is unreliable. A question: is the route situation permanent? Will PIA be flying thru MAN or non-stop? My impression from the article is that they started a non-stop route only to be altered at the last minute. Meaning they didn't intend to land in Manchester anyway, but were forced to. So passengers basically are all IAH-bound, not MAN. I'd say we wait for further developments and let the matters stabilize a bit. By the way, I haven't found a website independent of PIA that allows me to book the IAH-MAN leg. So I guess by now, MAN is not a destination. Feel free to revert. Elektrik Blue 82 00:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

i believe that it was a direct, non-stop route. but the US government doesnt want to allow this for security reasons. thats as much as i know. Urban909

Continental Airlines

The Terminal E destionations for Continental Airlines does not mention Amsterdam, Netherlands which Continental does fly to.

World airport guide

this seems like a logical and important link for further info about IAH/HOU. Urban909

It adds no encyclopedic info that isn't already covered in the article, or on the official website. Thanks/wangi 16:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
i mostly agree, although i think it gives the option of finding out more info than the official website. that link has been there for as long as i became a member on wikipeida. i have been trying to get a discussion going for a week, and have yet not recieved any response from Elektrik blue 82.
(As a side comment, can you sign posts using ~~~~ so they include the timestamp?)
Thing is this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory or travel guide. Our mission isn't for this article to be a guide to landing at IAH, getting a car and then getting a hotel — we should be covering topics of historic and encyclopedic content. It's really easy (Google for example) for someone to find out additional information about the airport and services companies offer targetted at it... But it's not our job to lead them buy the hand...
Another thing to consider, do you see the official website adding links to the multitude of sites like World Airport Guides? No, wonder why? Thanks/wangi 16:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

well if its really easy to google it, then should be deleted. have you gone through their website? certainly is a guide to landing at IAH, getting a car and then getting a hotel. [12] [13]. or maybe flight aware? [14] as they list Airport Services, Businesses, and Facilities. oh oh and [15] as they also have hotels, rental cars, limos, motels, etc listed. all of these sites have these AND other important valid things like security levels, terminal guides, etc. Urban909 is the official site of IAH and Hobby. Personally I agree that the link you refer to above have little use and should go, but saying we have this rubbish, lets have another one isn't a winning argument :) Thanks/wangi 18:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC) i know this is the official site. but under your argument, wikipedia should be a site of historical content, not a link to that someone can easily google. so, if that site is "rubish", which was a sarcastic comment not a basis for argument, then the others must be as well; i was pointing out that those plus many others have such links or guides. your argument is nonsequential, and in the bounds of such an argument, those mentioned, besides fly2houston, should be erased. so do it then, and quit complaining that a link that has been there for over 2 years should be erased. *yawn* Urban909

You've lost me - the link to World Airport Guides was recently added by you, it has not been there for two years. It's common practise to link to the official sites that an article is about, if they have one. Thanks/wangi 18:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no. I changed the name from houston airport hotels, to world airport guides. do some research. it was added on 08:12, 10 February 2005. the link first appeared almost 2 years ago... Urban909

Removal of photo

Flag posts of various nations located outside.

It has been suggested that this photo be removed from this article because it:

  • Does not look good.
  • Is not white balanceed.
  • Needs brightness/contrast corrected.
  • Has excessive image noise.
  • Could use optimal image resolution for Wikipedia.
  • May have been made on the computer and is not a photograph, painting, or scan -- it probably shouldn't be in JPEG format at all.
  • May not have a correct perspective.
  • Has a questionable composition.

Please comment on how you feel about this photo (in its current size) being re-incorporated into the "Artwork" section of this main article. If you support/reject any of the above points regarding this picture, please discuss.

Also, if you support/reject any of these points regarding the other two photos currently in the main article, please comment here as well.

  • ALSO NOTE: You can use most image editing software such as the free GIMP to do this manually. Many programs also have facilities for semi-automatic image enhancement (Ulead PhotoImpact 10 [16] is good), so that you only need to mindlessly click on thumbnails until you find a modification that improves the quality.
  • If you are inexperienced and can't improve the quality of an image, but you clearly see that the image needs improvements, upload it anyway and then ask anyone for assistance on Village Pump, Requested pictures, on this article talk page or elsewhere.

Nick81aku 20:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete i do not have a problem with a photo of those structures. i am opposed to the QUALITY of the photo in question.
  1. there is a bridge in the background
  2. grayish skies
  3. off centered; structures not looking like the main focus of the photo
  4. these are EXCELLENT examples of photos that look good
  5. this is a better shot on IAH website [17] website, although i wouldn't use this either. [18].


  • Delete - poor composition (needs to be closer to the subject and centered), half of the image is grass, casual observers would have a difficult time trying to understand what is in the image. GIMP cannot improve image composition. Postoak 02:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ha, so it’s settled just like that?
First off I had to laugh when I saw the two bold “deletes.” The image is not up for deletion—it is up for discussion.
Second, fine…Rip it apart as much as you want. However, both Texans (Urban909 and Postoak) surely understand that the flag posts are a major part of the outdoor landscape of IAH. Until there is a better picture of this critical element of the outdoor landscape, the image should stay. If someone has one (or can find a better one), please replace it! Until then, why can't the current immage of the posts be represented by a small thumbnail under the “artwork” heading? The quality is no worse than the two dim pictures already included in the article. Why pick apart this picture so much?
Third, if the grass and bridge are such distractions, maybe I should cut them out… (or maybe it should just be kept and be listed under bridge or grass?)
Look, bottom line—flag posts must be represented... and until a better picture is produced, I think this image should stay.

Nick81aku 20:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

(votes are evil) It might not be the best photo ever, but until we have a better one there is no harm in it staying. I have cropped the image to improve the composition (fluch your cache to see the change). Thanks/wangi 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry to break it to you, but discussion also involves the possibility of deletion. yes, like i said before, i do not have a problem with the SUBJECT of the photo. your photo does not have a good representation of the SUBJECT. also, if this photo is up for deletion, i believe it been over a week. unless i am mistaken, if the vote is delete, then thats final. find a better picture/take a better picture, present it and come back. why don't you contact HAS, and ask for permission to use a photo of the flags they have on their website and present that to this discussion board and we'll see. cheers.Urban909

Response to edit: "19:10, 27 December 2006 (Talk) (→Artwork - the result of this discussion was delete. until another/better photo can be put in place tag is now removed.)"
Well, actually no, the result was not to delete. Two people voted for keep (nick81aku and wangi) and two people voted for delete (Urban909 and Postoak). Solution: Photo to be added back until better one is produced. Nick81aku 04:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

i only see two deletes up there. just because it might have been inferred by you to keep it, technically the word "delete" is all i see. next time be more prepared. Urban909

  • No dispute existed until this photo was placed in the section. Solution: No photo to be added until a better one is produced. I'll drive up to the airport and take a picture of this damn thing if I have to :) Postoak 07:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please do so soon! (Postoak or anyone). Meanwhile, photo to be temporarily added back. I think we all want the same thing here—a top notch article. The artwork is an important element of IAH. What is obviously missing in the article is an image to represent this aspect of the airport. There is no consensus in this discussion to keep/remove photo. Until better photo is produced (hopefully it will happen soon), the one provided should stay. Also, I never wanted a dispute, somebody else brough that about. Nick81aku 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
All this will accomplish is the photo will be removed (again) and be replaced with the disputed tag. Top notch article? I will seek additional consensus from WikiProject Houston editors. Postoak 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I would keep this until alternate image is found - Find a way to take the pic with a higher resolution camera. Once the new picture appears, the old one may go. WhisperToMe 21:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I have formatted the image and uploaded to the same file—see image above. I think this is the best we have so far until we can get a better image. I suggest we put this image back into the article. —RJN 21:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
No offense to anyone, but I do not like this pic. A picture of the flags should be in the article, but not this one. I wouldn't like to see this in the article, but for the greater good of Wikipedia: keep it until we find a better one. Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 21:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think the photo is that bad, especially after the cropping. The sculpture is surrounded by roads, so not having a road in the background may be difficult. It does give valuable information to the reader regardless of its white balance. We have a free-content image available, I really don't see why we wouldn't use it, especially given that there is no alternative. - cohesion 22:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Consensus has been reached. All of you, thanks for your quick response...a WikiProject in action! :) I will put the image back in the acticle until a replacement image is found. RJN, thanks for the additional enhancements to the image. Postoak 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree. now that a consesus is reached that photo is fine for now. however, one needs to be put up that represents that part of the airport better. thank you everyone for your help! Urban909

The photo looks a lot better now. Thank you RJN (and of course everyone else)! Tennis DyNamiTe (sign here) 02:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sun Country Airlines

okay, the website for this airline says it flies to HOU not IAH. anyone know anything more on this?.Urban909

Nope. 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Section

Why is Term D disputed? I can not find anything wrong with the section and can not find anything in the talk page. If no one responds within one week I am going to take it off. -Ben 14:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

i fully agree. the only reason i put it up there is because had disputes about it. in this section, the disputes are countered by myself, but i never recevied a reply. as far as i am concerned that should be taken down now. Urban909

Possible lack of redirect

Any reason why "Intercontinental Airport" does not redirect here? toll_booth 00:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that I could think of, which is why it does now. --Souperman 09:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Terminal D

The following statement should be kept under Terminal D since the issue does regard Terminal D directly. The proposed airlines will operate out of that international terminal (D). If User:FCYTravis needs to remove it (again) I suggest it be added to Future Expansion or leave it as is under Terminal D.