Major airports by distance from "downtown"

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

LGA isn't an option for most people flying direct from the West Coast, though. I think Spirit is the only airline with a nonstop flight to the west coast from LGA, and it's only on Saturday.

according to global flight maps, there are no non-stop flights from LGA to the west coast.

https://www.flightconnections.com/fl...-york-city-lga


the furthest west one can fly to from LGA is Kalipsell, MT (gateway to Glacier NP). there's one saturday flight per week on american during the summer season.

the furthest west regular daily year-round flights from LGA are to denver on delta, united, southwest, and jet blue.



my guess is that LGA's relatively short runways don't allow aircraft to take-off with enough fuel to reach the west coast, but i don't know that for a fact.

chicago's MDW airport has a similar issue with short runways, but being located in the middle of the nation, flights from MDW can reach all corners of the lower 48.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

according to global flight maps, there are no non-stop flights from LGA o the west coast.

https://www.flightconnections.com/fl...-york-city-lga


the furthest west one can fly to from LGA is Kalipsell, MO (gateway to Glacier NP). there's one saturday flight per week on american during the summer season.

the furthest west regular daily year-round flights from LGA are to denver on delta, united, southwest, and jet blue.



my guess is that LGA's relatively short runways don't allow aircraft to take-off with enough fuel to reach the west coast, but i don't know that for a fact.

It looks like Spirit quietly scrapped that flight. But the cap is due to a Port Authority rule that limits distance to/from LGA to airports to within 1,500 miles plus Denver on Sunday through Friday.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But the cap is due to a Port Authority rule that limits distance to/from LGA to airports to within 1,500 miles plus Denver on Sunday through Friday.

Gotcha.

I wonder what the rationale for that rule is.

It seems like west coast fliers might like the close-in convenience of LGA too.

[Crawford]

I believe the Port Authority wants international and transcontinental flights at JFK and Newark. I don't believe it has anything directly to do with LGA runways or capacity. And I know the airlines are constantly complaining about this rule.

Could it also be related to NIMBYs and the federal flight restrictions? LGA flights affect higher density areas, and there are less ocean approaches, and the local NIMBYs are particularly vociferous. Are large(r) planes louder?

It's also funny that the Port Authority keeps heavily promoting Stewart International, which is only used by the European super-budget carriers. Yes, it's a giant airport, with huge theoretical capacity, but Stewart is like a million miles from Manhattan. Will never work without some fast, direct train.

The NY region really should have built that fourth airport in the NJ swamps back in the 1960's, but the NIMBYs fought it and won. Now it's the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Oh, well.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I believe the Port Authority wants international and transcontinental flights at JFK and Newark. I don't believe it has anything directly to do with LGA runways or capacity. And I know the airlines are constantly complaining about this rule.

Could it also be related to NIMBYs and the federal flight restrictions? LGA flights affect higher density areas, and there are less ocean approaches, and the local NIMBYs are particularly vociferous. Are large(r) planes louder?

I think I read before that a Boeing 757 is the largest plane that can land safely at LGA, so that was probably a factor in the past. But with the smaller long range aircraft available now, I'm not sure it matters anymore. I'm also not sure the congestion argument holds up anymore either, since airlines would just swap out less profitable routes to JFK or EWR. But one thing that would still matter is timing. Flights departing the west coast around 3pm don't get to New York until about 11pm, but the airport closes at midnight.

[Grego43]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think I read before that a Boeing 757 is the largest plane that can land safely at LGA, so that was probably a factor in the past. But with the smaller long range aircraft available now, I'm not sure it matters anymore.

That's not accurate. In the early 2000s I commuted weekly from South Florida to NYC and was usually on a Delta 767 into LGA from PBI and FLL.

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

google maps says 21 miles driving distance from KC city hall to the middle terminal at MCI, so yeah, it's way out there, easpecially for a more mid-sized metro area.

it's also interesting to note that the airport is NNW of downtown while the vast bulk of KC sprawl appears to spread generally southward, on both side of the MO/KS border.

I think a big part of the location was that KC had a huge amount of relatively inexpensive undeveloped land to the north while that to the south was pricier (and actually hillier). They also wanted the northern part of the city (north of the Missouri River) to develop and act as a counterbalance to the explosive growth south and west in the Kansas county of Johnson. Never really worked that way.

Still hella far from the city and most of the population nodes, east, west and south.

New airport terminal is just about finished. Thank goodness.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Gotcha.

I wonder what the rationale for that rule is.

It seems like west coast fliers might like the close-in convenience of LGA too.

I believe central airports should serve primary short destinations. I mean, if the person will spend 4 hours on the plane anyway, few minutes more in the way to the airport makes no difference. If it's an one hour flight, than you might spend more time on the way to the airport than in the flight itself.

Down here, São Paulo Congonhas, for example, serves primarily Centre-South destinations, with few flights to Northeast capitals.

[nito]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Not another one of these lol. JFK doesn't have a Heathrow Express type of boondoggle, no. Which most people don't use anyway because it's ridiculously expensive and inconvenient. That's the only difference between JFK access to Manhattan and Heathrow access to Paddington Station. However, JFK is well served by public transit. Thousands of seats go between Manhattan and JFK per hour on rail based transit.

Direct rail connections aren’t just whims of fancy – otherwise they wouldn’t be so common across the world – but transport strategies to efficiently move large passenger (and employee) volumes between an airport to a city core and elsewhere. In the absence of such infrastructure, these people would travel by road. The likes of Heathrow and other airports have aggressive strategies to drastically reduce the number of car journeys to/from the airport and that wouldn’t be possible without rail connections.

Heathrow isn’t solely served by an airport express service (although by itself it would have been the 4th busiest LIRR branch line), it also has the Piccadilly Line and Elizabeth Line. Gatwick Airport’s station pre-pandemic would have been the 8th busiest heavy rail station in North America. They more than pay for themselves otherwise they wouldn’t exist. You’ll even be able to get a train from London to Manchester Airport (63mins) once HS2 opens.