Major airport statistics

[mhays]

Originally Posted by badrunner

LAX actually looks a little bigger in land area: https://acme.com/same_scale/#37.6231...8.40974,14,S,S and its runway arrangement handles more traffic than SFO. They must be counting the water out to the runway lights as well as Seaplane Harbor.

Over half of SFO's acreage is water, per the link I posted a few days ago.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

Parallel runways can operate together on instruments if they're 2,500' apart as a baseline, thought that can vary based on other considerations. With visual landings the difference only needs to be 700', again with some added complexities. Any airport with hub ambitions will try for the larger standard.

One of the advantages of a giant airfield like ORD's is that you can space parallel runways out pretty far.

ORD has 6 parallels spaced in a 1/2/2/1 configuration such that even during IFR conditions, 4 of the 6 can still be used for simultaneous ops.

4 parallels for simultaneous ops is still quite a lot.

And while you can argue that it might not use land space to the absolute maximum efficiency, flat land is the one thing the Midwest will never run out of. Such considerations are obviously a bit different in the highly land constrained metros out west.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

One of the advantages of a giant airfield like ORD's is that you can space parallel runways out pretty far.

ORD has 6 parallels spaced in a 1/2/2/1 configuration such that even during IFR conditions, 4 of the 6 can still be used for simultaneous ops.

4 parallels for simultaneous ops is still quite a lot.

And while you can argue that it might not use land space to the absolute maximum efficiency, flat land is the one thing the Midwest will never run out of. Such considerations are obviously a bit different in the highly land constrained metros out west.

Do you think Chicago might once again get the top spot as US busiest or this ship has sailed for good? Big airport, big market and well located near US population centre.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Do you think Chicago might once again get the top spot as US busiest or this ship has sailed for good? Big airport, big market and well located near US population centre.

It could certainly handle the plane traffic to do so given its 6 parallel runways, but it needs more terminal space (in the works).

Also ORD is a dual hub where United and American directly compete against each other, while most of the other busiest US airports are now fortress hubs like ATL (Delta), DFW (American), and DIA (United) where competition is much less aggressive, so the airlines that control them like to funnel more people through them.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It could certainly handle the traffic to do so given its 6 parallels runways, but it needs more terminal space (in the works).

Also ORD is a dual hub where United and American directly compete against each other, while most of the other busiest US airports are now fortress hubs like ATL (Delta), DFW (American), and DIA (United) where competition is much less aggressive, so the airlines that control them like to funnel more people through them.

Yeah, maybe with this terminal expansion it could help it to attract more flights and reach 100 million passengers.

I've never paid much attention on Denver and it's crazy: 77 million pax! A relatively small place, with not a big local market to feed it. Probably mostly due connections and I imagine Americans have plenty of options to avoid connections due the massive number of flights you have available.

[mhays]

The big Western US airports tend to be land-constrained and near capacity. (This is a big contrast with the Midwest where many have seen big declines in use.)

When someone expands, they tend to fill up. Denver is the best example of that. Seattle-Tacoma too.

Salt Lake City should follow. They've been opening up expansions in phases, which continue to 2026. They say their new capacity will be 34m vs. 27m last year, though I suspect that's just optimal capacity and they could go higher. Maybe this will give Denver some competition for middle-West hub traffic, via their Delta hub or otherwise.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

(This is a big contrast with the Midwest where many have seen big declines in use.)

Mergers, and their subsequent de-hubbings, really hurt the Midwest/rustbelt airport game.

Today, of the 31 US airports that the FAA categorizes as "large hubs", only four of them are in Midwest: ORD, MSP, DTW, and MDW.

Decades ago, back in their hub glory days, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh all would've been there too.

[mhays]

Yeah, and it looks like the region could handle vastly more traffic anywhere except Midway without expanding airport borders.

O'Hare has its new terminals completed or on the way.

Detroit's terminals are pretty new, traffic was still well below its mid-30ms peak last year, and it looks like it has room to expand existing terminals.

Same on both counts with MSP, which was getting near 40m before Covid.

As much as airlines like hubs, if capacity was a huge issue in the current four, other hubs or mini-hubs would develop. Milwaukee, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Indianapolis seem to have easy paths to expanded terminals if needed, some more than others. And some aren't using the terminals they have.

Indianapolis takes the cake...it's never hit 10m, but the site looks like it could expand to handle 50m in needed.

[Steely Dan]

and

Originally Posted by mhays

Yeah, and it looks like the region could handle vastly more traffic anywhere except Midway without expanding airport borders.

With the recent-ish closure of runway 31R/13L at MDW, some observers have speculated that it could potentially set the table for extensions to concourses A and B, with each concourse possibly adding up to 8 gates, for a total of 16 new gates.

16 new gates isn't necessarily a sea change, but as the airport currently only has 43 gates, it would be a roughly 40% increase in gate space.

I don't know what capacity limits MDW's two commercial jet-rated crossing runways might be running into these days, but there is at least now theoretical room for significant gate expansion if such is ever desired.

Originally Posted by mhays

O'Hare has its new terminals completed or on the way.

Ugh...... Don't even get me started on the shit-show that the big ORD terminal & satellite expansion project is devolving into as United, American, and the city all squabble about who pays for what, how much, and who gets what.

It's another problem of being a dual-hub airport vs. a fortress hub.

But at least the big 20 year, $10B runway realignment/expansion project is now done, giving the airport perhaps the largest runway capacity in the world with 6 parallels and 2 crosswind runways.

The airfield is now ready to handle almost any plane capacity the industry can throw at it; the parties involved now need to all act like adults and just fucking sort out the terminal expansion side of the equation so that construction on it might one day commence during the time I have left in this world.

[Streamliner]

Originally Posted by mhays

Salt Lake City should follow. They've been opening up expansions in phases, which continue to 2026. They say their new capacity will be 34m vs. 27m last year, though I suspect that's just optimal capacity and they could go higher. Maybe this will give Denver some competition for middle-West hub traffic, via their Delta hub or otherwise.

I imagine that 34m must be optimal capacity. San Diego's airport is tiny. It has one runway and is approximately one square mile; it's max capacity is 40m passengers a year.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mhays

The big Western US airports tend to be land-constrained and near capacity. (This is a big contrast with the Midwest where many have seen big declines in use.)

When someone expands, they tend to fill up. Denver is the best example of that. Seattle-Tacoma too.

Salt Lake City should follow. They've been opening up expansions in phases, which continue to 2026. They say their new capacity will be 34m vs. 27m last year, though I suspect that's just optimal capacity and they could go higher. Maybe this will give Denver some competition for middle-West hub traffic, via their Delta hub or otherwise.

And why companies don't eye those like St. Louis with lots of idle capacity and I assume more competitive fees as those airports are probably eager to attract flights?

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Streamliner

I imagine that 34m must be optimal capacity. San Diego's airport is tiny. It has one runway and is approximately one square mile; it's max capacity is 40m passengers a year.

Conveniently located though; 15 minute Uber from the Gaslamp district.

[ChiSoxRox]

This brings to mind a thread I did:

The 37 U.S. metros (CSA or single MSAs) over 2 million ranked by per-capita commercial air boardings in 2019 (to avoid covid):

City........Enplanements........PSA........Ratio
Las Vegas........24,890,213........2,317,052........10.742
Denver........33,592,945........3,623,560........9.271
Charlotte........24,379,675........2,822,352........8.638
Atlanta........53,505,795........6,930,423........7.720
Miami........43,345,189........6,868,652........6.311
Orlando........26,504,700........4,222,422........6.277
Dallas........43,859,079........8,121,108........5.401
Seattle........25,422,108........4,953,421........5.132
Chicago........50,953,004........9,986,960........5.102
Salt Lake City........12,967,284........2,701,129........4.801
Phoenix........23,315,407........4,899,104........4.759
Minneapolis........19,214,684........4,078,788........4.711
SF Bay Area........42,380,512........9,714,023........4.363
Nashville........8,935,654........2,118,233........4.218
Houston........28,974,923........7,312,270........3.963
San Diego........12,648,692........3,298,634........3.835
Tampa Bay........12,122,239........3,175,275........3.818
Austin........8,507,410........2,283,371........3.726
DC-Baltimore......36,793,363........9,973,383........3.689
Detroit........18,445,646........5,424,742........3.400
Raleigh........6,919,429........2,106,463........3.285
New York........72,016,532........23,582,649........3.054
Los Angeles........56,868,962........18,644,680........3.050
Portland, OR........9,797,408........3,280,736........2.986
Boston...........23,810,043........8,466,186........2.812
St. Louis........7,927,512........2,924,904........2.710
Sacramento........6,454,413........2,680,831........2.408
Kansas City........5,759,419........2,528,644........2.278
Philadelphia........16,536,162........7,379,700........2.241
San Juan........4,630,554........2,358,201........1.964
San Antonio........5,022,980........2,576,528........1.950
Cincinnati........4,413,457........2,316,022........1.906
Indianapolis........4,709,183........2,492,514........1.889
Pittsburgh........4,874,200........2,657,149........1.834
Columbus........4,325,917........2,544,048........1.700
Milwaukee........3,374,073........2,053,232........1.643
Cleveland........5,302,187........3,633,962........1.459

Isolated/tourist magnets on top, the Midwest "fallen hubs" at the bottom.

Smaller metros that stay above a ratio of 3.

City........Enplanements........PSA........Ratio
Honolulu........9,988,678........1,016,508........9.826
Anchorage........2,758,507........398,328........6.925
New Orleans........6,874,111........1,506,610........4.563
Fort Myers........5,044,024........1,176,193........4.288
Reno........2,162,250........657,958........3.286

[bilbao58]

Originally Posted by JManc

Conveniently located though; 15 minute Uber from the Gaslamp district.

And fun to fly in and out of. Hint: When flying to SD, get a window seat on the left side.

[mhays]

San Diego's 40m capacity sounds like waay more than practical. It did 24m last year and 25m in 2019. Growing much beyond that on one runway seems problematic regardless of terminal space.

As of 2019, the 40m goal projected a 67% increase in passengers but just 24% more flights, due to bigger and fuller planes. They also say they'd need to spread planes across the day more, rather than a lot of people bunching at popular times. I imagine any weather delays would stack things up far worse than at most airports.

Since the ideas of a second airport (omitting the one on the border) appears to be off the table, I suspect the reality will be slower growth than expected. The more painful and expensive the airport is, the fewer passengers you'll get. Some will drive to greater LA, some will drive, some just won't visit... Of course the 40m figure is from before Covid, and traffic hasn't even gotten to the 2019 level yet as of year-end.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by mhays

San Diego's 40m capacity sounds like waay more than practical. It did 24m last year and 25m in 2019. Growing much beyond that on one runway seems problematic regardless of terminal space.

As of 2019, the 40m goal projected a 67% increase in passengers but just 24% more flights, due to bigger and fuller planes. They also say they'd need to spread planes across the day more, rather than a lot of people bunching at popular times. I imagine any weather delays would stack things up far worse than at most airports.

Since the ideas of a second airport (omitting the one on the border) appears to be off the table, I suspect the reality will be slower growth than expected. The more painful and expensive the airport is, the fewer passengers you'll get. Some will drive to greater LA, some will drive, some just won't visit... Of course the 40m figure is from before Covid, and traffic hasn't even gotten to the 2019 level yet as of year-end.

John Wayne Airport in OC is already widely used especially for areas of the northern sections of SD metro area.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

St. Louis........7,927,512........2,924,904........2.710
Sacramento........6,454,413........2,680,831........2.408
Kansas City........5,759,419........2,528,644........2.278
Philadelphia........16,536,162........7,379,700........2.241
San Juan........4,630,554........2,358,201........1.964
San Antonio........5,022,980........2,576,528........1.950
Cincinnati........4,413,457........2,316,022........1.906
Indianapolis........4,709,183........2,492,514........1.889
Pittsburgh........4,874,200........2,657,149........1.834
Columbus........4,325,917........2,544,048........1.700
Milwaukee........3,374,073........2,053,232........1.643
Cleveland........5,302,187........3,633,962........1.459

8 of the bottom 12 in the Midwest/Rustbelt.

No surprise, as Chicago, Detroit, and Minneapolis are the only metros left in the region with hub airports.

As I mentioned earlier, airline mergers, and their subsequent de-hubbings, really clobbered the region, as this data corroborates.

Hell, STL was once a top 10 busiest airport back in its TWA hub glory days. As a child, I remember transferring through STL on TWA from Chicago back in the '80s!! TWA was running so many connecting passengers through STL back in the 90s (it was the airline's main fortress hub), that the airport even tore down a suburban neighborhood for a third parallel runway, and in the interim of that construction, American merged with TWA, and moved all Midwest hubs ops of the combined airline to the existing American hub at ORD, and STL ended up never really needing that third paralle runway.


And I'm guessing that Sacramento and Philly lose significant pax numbers to their nearby bigger neighbors. Milwaukee has a similar dynamic with Chicago.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And I'm guessing that Sacramento and Philly lose significant pax numbers to their nearby bigger neighbors. Milwaukee has a similar dynamic with Chicago.

Although Sacramento's passenger count has grown with the regional population, it still serves relatively few international destinations so many just drive to SFO. I would always get a quick visit with my parents or sister whenever they were flying abroad.

[ChrisLA]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

8 of the bottom 12 in the Midwest/Rustbelt.


Hell, STL was once a top 10 busiest airport back in its TWA hub glory days. As a child, I remember transferring through STL on TWA from Chicago back in the '80s!! TWA was running so many connecting passengers through STL back in the 90s…..that the airport even tore down a suburban neighborhood for a third parallel runway, and in the interim of that construction, American merged with TWA, and moved all Midwest hubs ops of the combined airline to the existing American hub…….and STL ended up never really needing that third paralle runway.

I too remember when I would visit St Louis back in the 80’s the airport was quite busy. To my surprise when when my wife and I visited in 2011, the airport was quite empty in comparison to the 80’s.

Speaking of that 3rd runway, my wife went to the high school in that neighborhood. Her family lived adjacent to the area that was torn down. She went to high school in the neighborhood by the airport and it close not long after she finished. I believe she said most of the residents had already moved out so the high school had a very small population. It was sad for the people who were uprooted but she has fond memories having this intimate experience with the teachers and classmates. I believe she said there was about 300 students in the whole school. The last time we were there we drove through the area, the streets are still there but everything including the school is gone now.

[iheartthed]

St. Louis still seems like a good location for an airline hub. I could imagine it being a busier airport today if TWA had not collapsed the way that it did. But with American acquiring the remnants of it, the geographical advantages of St. Louis over Dallas were minimal. Same with Philadelphia over JFK when American acquired US Airways.