daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Airports and Aviation

Airports and Aviation » Airports | Photos and Videos



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 11th, 2012, 03:17 AM   #1
1772
Registered User
 
1772's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,573
Likes (Received): 1439

MISC | What is best; One big airport or several smaller ones?

In your opinion for a metropolis; is one airport (Paris, London, Hong Kong, L.A.) better than having several (NY, Milan etc.)?
1772 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 11th, 2012, 03:18 AM   #2
krnboy1009
Registered User
 
krnboy1009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 1,661
Likes (Received): 169

Paris have Orly, London have Gatwick, Stansted, and to much lesser extent, Luton and City.
krnboy1009 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 03:24 AM   #3
Maxi_Moscow
Registered User
 
Maxi_Moscow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,021
Likes (Received): 1516

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1772 View Post
In your opinion for a metropolis; is one airport (Paris, London, Hong Kong, L.A.) better than having several (NY, Milan etc.)?
Paris has CDG and Orly; H.K. has one; L.A. has LAX, Burbank, Ontario, Long Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana. Not very good examples.

Paris: CDG has worldwide traffic while Orly has domestic (and former French colonies).

L.A.: L.A.X has worldwide traffic. Other ports have international flights as well but only to Mexico (maybe Canada).

To answer your question:


It is more convenient to have multiple airports if the metropolitan area is large. Having an airport in the center is a disaster and having one in the suburbs is a disaster as well for people who live on the opposite sides.


Moscow has 3 airports (DME, VKO, SVO). They all offer domestic and international flights.

London has 5 airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton, Citi).

It all depends.
Maxi_Moscow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 02:39 PM   #4
Black Cat
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,774
Likes (Received): 814

Having one airport is much more advantageous than several simply because it facilities easy flight transfers and enables airlines and companies using air transport to have one base rather than having several. (Atlanta, Dallas-Ft Worth) Splitting international and domestic flights is always a problem for cities seeking to be "hub" airports. London, NYC etc only have several airports due to airport or runway capacities being limited.
Black Cat no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 02:46 PM   #5
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,867
Likes (Received): 18138

One airport and one terminal - it's hard enough to switch terminals within one airport, let alone grab all the bags and head to another airport altogether.
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 06:42 PM   #6
1772
Registered User
 
1772's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,573
Likes (Received): 1439

I was of course refering to international airports. I am aware of Los Angeles having minor airports.
1772 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 07:32 PM   #7
Maxi_Moscow
Registered User
 
Maxi_Moscow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,021
Likes (Received): 1516

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1772 View Post
I was of course refering to international airports. I am aware of Los Angeles having minor airports.
Burbank is not minor.
Maxi_Moscow no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 11th, 2012, 08:34 PM   #8
krnboy1009
Registered User
 
krnboy1009's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 1,661
Likes (Received): 169

I would say Burbank is compared to secondary airports in NYC (LaGuardia, Newark), and Chicago (Midway) and to certain extent Dallas (Love Field).
krnboy1009 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2012, 01:50 AM   #9
GTR66
GTR66
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 1,274
Likes (Received): 312

Dont all Big cities have more than one commerical airport. Unlike ATL who has Delta's mega.
GTR66 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2012, 03:03 AM   #10
aquablue
BANNED
 
aquablue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,750
Likes (Received): 229

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxi_Moscow View Post
Paris has CDG and Orly; H.K. has one; L.A. has LAX, Burbank, Ontario, Long Beach, Irvine, Santa Ana. Not very good examples.

Paris: CDG has worldwide traffic while Orly has domestic (and former French colonies).

L.A.: L.A.X has worldwide traffic. Other ports have international flights as well but only to Mexico (maybe Canada).

To answer your question:


It is more convenient to have multiple airports if the metropolitan area is large. Having an airport in the center is a disaster and having one in the suburbs is a disaster as well for people who live on the opposite sides.


Moscow has 3 airports (DME, VKO, SVO). They all offer domestic and international flights.

London has 5 airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton, Citi).

It all depends.
Orly is not a domestic airport.

Anyway, I think for very large cities, 2 lage airports is ideal to serve different areas. Perhaps adding a small airport in the center like LCY for instance for business use.

I think London and NYC have two many airports and they complicate issues such as hubbing and transport. London needs to consolidate and so does NY.

Paris is ideal because it has 2 large airports that serve different sides of the city. Same with Shanghai.

Last edited by aquablue; February 12th, 2012 at 03:09 AM.
aquablue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2012, 04:40 AM   #11
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,744
Likes (Received): 10969

Having options is usually preferable. Pearson in Toronto offers lots of flights, but for short hops under 2000 km I'm glad there's the City Island airport. If you live downtown, you can practically walk there. You save tons of time, it's rarely crowded, you get the white glove treatment, and get great city views taking off/landing.

I'm sure all airports have their good points and bad so having a choice is great.
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898

Last edited by isaidso; February 14th, 2012 at 10:39 AM.
isaidso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2012, 07:31 AM   #12
diablo234
Oh No He Didn't
 
diablo234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,297

Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Cat View Post
Having one airport is much more advantageous than several simply because it facilities easy flight transfers and enables airlines and companies using air transport to have one base rather than having several. (Atlanta, Dallas-Ft Worth) Splitting international and domestic flights is always a problem for cities seeking to be "hub" airports. London, NYC etc only have several airports due to airport or runway capacities being limited.
Dallas also has two airports (with Dallas Love Field serving US domestic routes and is one of Southwest Airlines focus cities) so it is not a good example.

Anyways I think once a city reaches a certain size, (say above four-five million people) a secondary airport becomes a huge benefit.
diablo234 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 12th, 2012, 07:38 PM   #13
Maxi_Moscow
Registered User
 
Maxi_Moscow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,021
Likes (Received): 1516

Quote:
Originally Posted by diablo234 View Post
Dallas also has two airports (with Dallas Love Field serving US domestic routes and is one of Southwest Airlines focus cities) so it is not a good example.

Anyways I think once a city reaches a certain size, (say above four-five million people) a secondary airport becomes a huge benefit.
This!
Maxi_Moscow no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium