HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 1:52 AM
The Chemist's Avatar
The Chemist The Chemist is offline
恭喜发财!
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 中国上海/Shanghai
Posts: 8,883
Personally, I hate both of Shanghai's airports (and hence I hate flying in China which is why I always take the HSR when I can) but it'd be even worse if they were combined into a single huge airport, IMO.
__________________
"Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature." - Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 3:23 AM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
one big airport, absolutely.
I tend to agree. With O'Hare, I can get pretty much anywhere in one hop.

I can take the O'Hare L in. A couple of escalators up. Security. And then bars, bars, bars until it's time to go straight to wherever I want.

And if I can't get there from O'Hare then I can from Heathrow ... so two hops both well appointed with travel booze.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 3:51 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is online now
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,210
In a truly huge city you'd be better with multiple airports since traveling tens of miles through congestion just to catch a flight would suck. LA needs its other airports, LAX would be a hassle to reach from say, Riverside otherwise.

But Dallas Love and DFW aren't very far apart and it feels redundant to have flight demand split between the two.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 1:40 PM
brickell's Avatar
brickell brickell is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: County of Dade
Posts: 9,379
How are places like ORD and ATL with discount carriers?

The dynamic in South Florida is that MIA has very few (and is mostly AA anyway). It's almost always cheaper to fly domestically and some international routes out of FLL. There seems to be no getting around that.

The other nice thing is that each of the South Florida airports does have their own area of coverage and constituency; Dade, Broward, Palm Beach counties. They're not duplicates, which I think gives us more options overall.
__________________
That's what did it in the end. Not the money, not the music, not even the guns. That is my heroic flaw: my excess of civic pride.

Last edited by brickell; Apr 28, 2016 at 2:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 2:25 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickell View Post
How are places like ORD and ATL with discount carriers?
i can only speak about ORD. the two biggies at ORD are obviously United and American who each operate massive hubs at the airport and together control the lion's share of the airport's passenger traffic, but ORD is also a focus airport for both Spirit and Frontier, who each fly to about two dozen cities non-stop from ORD. Jet Blue and Virgin America each have pretty limited service to ORD from a handful of their respective hubs/focus cities. and that's it for domestic LCC's at ORD.

there is no Southwest presence at ORD because Southwest serves the chicago market exclusively through MDW, and they UTTERLY DOMINATE that aiport.

and unlike metro miami's airports, ORD and MDW don't really serve different sub-markets. they're both located within the city limits of chicago. ORD is ~14 miles NW of the loop and MDW is ~8 miles SW of the loop, and they're both connected to downtown by el lines.

MDW is an old and outdated airport by today's standards (the airfield itself, not the terminals and concourses which were all entirely rebuilt from the ground up in the late '90s/early '00s), and in most other markets, it would have died, much like it nearly did when ORD was built in the '60s. but the airport hung around for a while, unloved and barely used, until it was saved in the knick of time by airline deregulation in the late 70s. first, a chicago LCC start-up called midway airlines set up a hub at the airport, proving that the little airport still had viability. they eventually folded, but not before other LCC's noticed what they were doing and started setting up shop there as well. Southwest first set-up shop there in 1985, and over the decades, through attrition and mergers of other LCC's, southwest came to dominate the airport and is now more or less the only game in town at MDW (except for a handful of other airlines who all have very limited service to MDW).

so while chicago, like miami, is one of the few american metros with more than one large hub airport, as defined by the FAA (NY and DC/balt. are the other two), it's kind of a different arrangement. chicago just happened to have this little old airport that just kept hanging around until someone was able to really take full advantage of it. today, MDW serves over 22 million passengers a year and is busier than it has ever been in its entire life, even compared against its time in the 1950s when it was the "world's busiest airport". it's probably the greatest airport comeback story of all time.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Apr 28, 2016 at 4:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 4:48 PM
Kngkyle Kngkyle is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,099
One large airport is definitely better for the local population. More non-stop flights = dramatically shorter travel times. Taking an extra 30 minutes to get to the airport or through security is nothing compared to the 2+ hour minimum that a connection adds to the trip.

Those who said they prefer multiple small airports because LAX/ORD/JFK/ATL are a pain to connect through are arguing against themselves. If they had a large hub airport from which to depart from they wouldn't have to connect in the first place.

My home airport (ORD) has pretty much always been a breeze for me.. but my having Global Entry and TSA Pre-check is probably part of that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 5:32 PM
shivtim's Avatar
shivtim shivtim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Midtown Atlanta
Posts: 2,360
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickell View Post
How are places like ORD and ATL with discount carriers?
Delta dominates ATL, but there are several discount carriers. Southwest has a large and growing presence, serving about 40 destinations. Frontier is also expanding, currently serving about 15 destinations. Then there's Spirit, also with 15 destinations. There's enough competition to keep Delta from running up the prices.

I think the "1 big airport" model works great, but Atlanta really is an unusual case because there's not another big airport anywhere close. Charlotte is 250 miles away. Just for comparison if you're in Philadelphia (a similarly sized metro) you would have multiple major airports closer than that (DCA, EWR, JFK, LGA, PHL, BWI, IAD)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 6:48 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,846
Why cant we prefer having them both? I love LAX for most of my travel and i love Burbank and Long Beach for shorter trips to Vegas or SF. The issues with smaller regionals is that the pricing usually isnt competitive. LAX is almost always cheaper than Burbank for flights, even to Vegas where Burbank excels.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 7:15 PM
nergie nergie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kngkyle View Post
One large airport is definitely better for the local population. More non-stop flights = dramatically shorter travel times. Taking an extra 30 minutes to get to the airport or through security is nothing compared to the 2+ hour minimum that a connection adds to the trip.

Those who said they prefer multiple small airports because LAX/ORD/JFK/ATL are a pain to connect through are arguing against themselves. If they had a large hub airport from which to depart from they wouldn't have to connect in the first place.

My home airport (ORD) has pretty much always been a breeze for me.. but my having Global Entry and TSA Pre-check is probably part of that.
AMEN to Global Entry and TSA Pre-check..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 8:08 PM
McBane McBane is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 3,718
The general issue with airports in the US is that they're old. They've kept up with the times through haphazard additions and incremental renovations. The end result are airports that have inconsistent interiors (each terminal seems to have been remodeled or built in a different decade) and confusing layouts.

Other countries are building brand new, larger airports from scratch. In the US, such plans get mired in endless red tape, litigation, and opposition from NIMBYs, environmentalists, and anti-tax/spend crusaders. Plus decades of sprawl has left our metro areas with almost no open land near our city cores or the appropriate transit to stick an airport in a metro area's hinterlands.

So we're left with existing airports that will continually be added to to accommodate larger planes and more destinations.

If you've ever been overseas, those airports are gleaming and super efficient. Among my favs: Frankfort, Tel Aviv, Incheon (S. Korea), and Bangkok.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 8:15 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
...
JFK is a mess. O'Hare is a mess (although it has great food). But Atlanta?
O'Hare has its downsides, but it's nowhere near as bad as JFK. JFK is possibly the worst airport I've ever flown in or out of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mthd View Post
...
(how many regional airports have heavy rail links directly to CBD?),
...
In Chicago you can take "L" (metro-style) rail directly to O'Hare and Midway. You can also take fairly frequent Amtrak service to Milwaukee's airport from Chicago's Loop. And Gary Airport, which used to have passenger service, is accessible via the South Shore line from downtown Chicago + a 1-mile shuttle to/from the terminals. You can also take the South Shore line to the South Bend airport, too, and one of Chicago's other commuter lines has a stop near O'Hare although that then requires both a shuttle and a people-mover train to get to the terminals so is not exactly convenient.

Midway in Chicago is actually about the 25th-busiest airport in the US by number of passengers, so while it is Chicago's regional airport it's also still bigger than some cities' primary airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2016, 8:29 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
Why cant we prefer having them both?
you certainly can, but it's important to remember that metro LA is a bit of an outlier in the number and diversity of sizes of its airports.

the FAA divides america's main commercial passenger airports into 3 categories based on the number of passengers they serve: large hubs, medium hubs, and small hubs. there are 30 large hubs, 31 medium hubs, and 72 small hubs based on 2014 data (2015 data doesn't come out 'til june).

most US metros only have one main commercial passenger airport, but of the 15 CSAs that have more than one main commercial passenger airport, most just have a large hub and then a smaller secondary airport that often serves a different sub-market within the CSA. LA is a bit unique in that it has one GIANT main hub airport and then a whole constellation of medium and small hubs sprinkled across the area.

here's how america's 15 multi-airport CSAs break down by the number of large hubs, medium hubs, and small hubs.

NEW YORK:
JFK
EWR
LGA
HPN
ISP



DC/BALTIMORE:
BWI
IAD
DCA



MIAMI:
MIA
FLL
PBI



CHICAGO:
ORD
MDW



LOS ANGELES:
LAX
SNA
ONT
BUR
LGB
PSP



BAY AREA:
SFO
OAK
SJC



DALLAS:
DFW
DAL



HOUSTON:
IAH
HOU



BOSTON:
BOS
PVD
MHT



ORLANDO:
MCO
SFB



PHOENIX:
PHX
IWA



TAMPA:
TPA
PIE



PHILADELPHIA:
PHL
ACY



DETROIT:
DTW
FNT



CLEVELAND:
CLE
CAK
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; May 1, 2016 at 6:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2016, 1:13 AM
texcolo's Avatar
texcolo texcolo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Truth or Consequences, NM
Posts: 4,304
One advantage of multiple medium sized airports is that they compete with each other.

Since Congress halted the Wright Amendment, which meant that flights going and coming from Love Field could only be in state or to New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana, both airports have been spending tens of millions to improve themselves.

DFW built a new terminal, a new people mover system and a DART rail connection to downtown.

Love Field completely rebuilt their terminal and almost has a direct connection to DART.

The main reason DFW has been sliding down the charts of passenger numbers, and number of flights has been because of Love Field.
__________________
"I am literally grasping at straws." - Bob Belcher
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:46 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.