It doesn't. As I mentioned above the problem was trying to build a ship the same length as the previous Clemenceau class but 50% heavier.
The Clemenceau was a successful attempt to produce a smaller ship with an improved "Essex SCB-125" layout. By replacing the two forward lifts with one better placed with respect to the forward catapult and clear of the landing area, they were able move one of the forward catapults to amidships.
With the Charles de Gaulle everything goes pearshaped.
The longer forward catapult pushed the location of the forward lift aft, where it would cut into the landing area. That means the lift has to be moved to the deck edge, displacing the island superstructure forward (where the CAG does not want it), the new location of the island means the forward catapult has to stay on the port side, where it cuts into the landing area, meaning no simultaneous landing/takeoff operation.
Compare what can be done with the original layout and a bit more hull length as in the 60s British CVA-01 design
The longer flightdeck means the forward lift can be moved aft, and still be clear of the landing deck. And the forward catapult can be located on the starboard side, well clear of the landing deck.
You’re kidding right? The thing is hardly putting out a wake. And what is it with the muckledung yellow and splotchy deck coloring? The thing looks like it has been sitting off Algers or Morocco for years blistering in the sun.
HAHAHAHA I count about 30 aircraft on the DECK of the Enterprise. Comapared to seven for the DeGaulle. I guess all the space is taken up by the wine cellar.....