Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've long wondered how much of the opposition to building a second airport was due to keeping the "world's busiest" title. Perhaps now it can be considered on a more rational basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch
Probably very minimal. Most second airports are usually built because the original airport was way too small (see Midway/O'Hare in Chicago, Love Field/DFW in Dallas, LaGuardia/Kennedy in NYC, etc.). This is not the case with Hartsfield (the second airport option was forgone in the 70s with the decision to build the current Midfield Terminal).
Some other significant challenges to building a second major airport for the Atlanta region have included:
> The long-held opposition of Atlanta and Georgia corporate behemoth Delta Air Lines to the development of a second major airport
> Intense, overriding opposition by local residents to the development of a second major airport in almost every area that it may be proposed to go in, because the of fears of the jet fumes, increased noise and increased development pressures that likely might would come with the development of a second major airport
> The frequent refusal of Georgia state government to often adequately fund various forms of multimodal transportation infrastructure, including air transportation infrastructure.
With that said, there actually has been at least a couple of so-far unsuccessful attempts to develop a second major airport for the Atlanta region over the past 50 years or so.
The first unsuccessful attempt to develop a second major Atlanta region airport came back in the 1970’s when the City of Atlanta bought a large tract of undeveloped forest land up in the Appalachian foothills of North Georgia in Dawson County with the probable intention of maybe one day developing the tract into a second major airport north of the city where most of the development was expected to occur in future decades.
But the continued opposition of Delta Air Lines (who has a huge voice in City of Atlanta politics) to the CoA spending resources on a second airport, as well as intense opposition by local residents and national environmental groups have effectively prevented the development of that CoA-owned land which remains a beloved Blue Ridge/Appalachian foothills forest wilderness nature preserve for the foreseeable future (Dawson Forest - City of Atlanta Tract).
The second so-far unsuccessful attempt to develop a second major Atlanta region airport has come in Atlanta’s western outer suburbs and exurbs with the development of Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport south off of US-278/GA-6 Rockmart Highway in the middle of a forest wilderness area in western Paulding County.
The Paulding airport, which appears to have been developed by Paulding County and outer-suburban/exurban Northwest metro Atlanta real estate development interests with the intent of becoming a second major airport for the Atlanta region, is in operation but so far has yet to gain momentum as the second major airport that it seems to have been intended to be.
Delta Air Lines has been vocal in blocking any increased public funding that might help to grow and expand the airport’s operations, and local residents have unsupportive of the local business community’s efforts to generate increased investment in the airport and plans to develop the wilderness, some of which is federally-protected wilderness area in the Paulding Forest and Sheffield Wildlife Management Areas.
But as of right now, the airfield which was and/or is at least intended to be a potential second major airport (the aforementioned Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport) is at least open and operating, while admittedly currently being an extremely long way from fulfilling those goals of actually becoming a second major airport for the greater Atlanta region.
There have even been multiple past threads here in the City-Data Atlanta Forum that have talked about the attempts to develop the Paulding Airport site into a second major airport for the Atlanta region.
I’ve always known that it was possible that Atlanta could lose its standing and title of the world’s busiest airport, and I’ve also always known that it was a distinct possibility that Atlanta could lose its standing and title of world’s busiest airport to an up-and-coming airport in China.
Though, like many, I never thought that it would be a devastating global pandemic that cut air traffic by more than 61% that would have been the reason why it happened.
It's also a smaller city and not Beijing or Shanghai. Then again in the US it's not necessarily the JFK or LAX that are the busiest, or even Ohare which I believe took the title a few years back. I also think Istabul's new airport is pretty close as well.
It's also a smaller city and not Beijing or Shanghai. Then again in the US it's not necessarily the JFK or LAX that are the busiest, or even Ohare which I believe took the title a few years back. I also think Istabul's new airport is pretty close as well.
Your comments raise an interesting point, which is that before Atlanta’s roughly 21-year run as the world’s busiest airport, Chicago’s O’Hare Airport had a decades-long run as the world’s busiest airport until Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson Airport tied O’Hare for the top spot in about 1998 and passed O’Hare for sole possession of the top spot in about 2003.
But while there have been significant events that have affected commercial air traffic during that time (particularly significant events like major economic slowdowns), before the outbreak of the global pandemic in 2020, I really cannot recall any event that has had such a dramatic effect in reducing global commercial air traffic by more than half or greater probably since about World War II.
The Paulding airport, which appears to have been developed by Paulding County and outer-suburban/exurban Northwest metro Atlanta real estate development interests with the intent of becoming a second major airport for the Atlanta region, is in operation but so far has yet to gain momentum as the second major airport that it seems to have been intended to be.
Paulding is dead as a commercial airport. It is a nice general aviation airport, and that's about it.
To be fair, last year and this year are not good measuring points given how the entire traveling industry was knocked out of the air (no pun intended) amid a global pandemic. Very unusual and unpredictable things happened last year and it’s going to take awhile before this gets brushed off our shoulders.
To be fair, last year and this year are not good measuring points given how the entire traveling industry was knocked out of the air (no pun intended) amid a global pandemic. Very unusual and unpredictable things happened last year and it’s going to take awhile before this gets brushed off our shoulders.
Definitely, Northern airports were even worst.
Still I never understood flying from the Northest to Alanta and transfer to the Midwest and West coast. I refused to add hours to my flight time. I can undertstand International flights in and then transfers west.
But why would I want to fly to Chicago from the Northeast and fly to Atlanta first..... Yet there are such flights offered.
Still I never understood flying from the Northest to Alanta and transfer to the Midwest and West coast. I refused to add hours to my flight time. I can undertstand International flights in and then transfers west.
But why would I want to fly to Chicago from the Northeast and fly to Atlanta first..... Yet there are such flights offered.
It gets more complicated....
Many people do fly direct, but many can't based on where they are flying to and from.... sort of the point of an air hub. Small and mid size cities only have so many direct flight options outside of flights to hubs.
Then there is an issue of competition. It depends on the origin and destination pairings, but sometimes there is only 1 airline that flies the direct route and it give them some market pricing power to increase prices, so 1 stop flight through a hub of another airline can be cheaper.
So Airline A has a direct flight option and 1-stop option. Airline B only has a 1-stop option. Airline B charges $100. So what airline A will try to do is price it for $150 to get people willing to pay more for the non-stop and then they will over a 1-stop option through another hub close to $100 to try to compete for those that want the cheapest ticket. This is one of several reasons flights in and out of mid-size and smaller cities can be more expensive.
To further complicate the issue, airlines increase or decrease the cost of a ticket closer to the day of travel based on how well the flight sold. Sometimes airlines offer cheaper tickets on a 1 stop connection, because those two flights are undersold and at the same time the first flight is mostly sold out and they are holding seats only for someone willing to pay an elevated premium price. Similar conundrum. The customer has to choose whether to shell out for the direct flight or to take cost savings by flying on the route the airline can offer the cheapest at that time, because the cheaper route was undersold.
Another complication is time of flight. There might be a direct flight, but at the hour you need to leave your fastest route home might be a connection. A direct flight is quicker, but a connection might get to your destination sooner depending on the time you can fly and what time each flight leaves the first airport.
Pretend you can't fly direct. For yourself you look at a map and and if you connect to Chicago it makes sense to connect through Detroit on the way to Chicago. It is on the way. But if demand was heavy on that flight or it is oversold at the time you need fly, flights through other hubs come back as cheaper. Most people would spend an extra hours on a plane for a cheaper ticket when they pay for it personally. From the airline's point of view, they know they can't fit everyone on the plane that goes a certain direction. They can get everyone to the final destination, but they're going to price each route to influence passengers to select different options when seats fill up and some will choose to pay more and some will choose to take price savings with a longer trip on flights that had weaker demand for that day.
With that said NE>ATL>ORD is an extreme. NE>ATL> West coast doesn't really add much time if you must connect. It won't be much different if you fly through Chicago, Detroit, DFW, Houston, etc...
Here is a random real world example. I put in google a flight from Portland, Maine to ORD for the early morning of May 19. (Forgive me this ends up being a comparison better suited for American Airlines and Charlotte. It was the first thing I tried and ended up being a great example and I'm too lazy to look for another)
There is only 1 non-stop flight to Chicago in the morning. It is at 6am for $394 on United Airlines.
AA has a 6am option with 1 stop (2.5 hours longer travel time) through Philadelphia and the price is $298, so there is cost savings using a connection.
They have no non-stop competition on that flight.
But say you can't make a 6am flight. You can't get a ride to the airport that early, the relative you're visiting wants to drop you off at the airport in their way to work, etc...
At 7:15am AA has a connection through Charlotte for $314. Total travel time is 6 hours vs. the 3 hour direct flight, but if you can't leave earlier than 7:15a it is what gets you to ORD in the quickest time at that point. The next non-stop flights to ORD are at 4pm and 5pm and all other connection options after 7:15a get you in later and/or cost much more.
Different people will make different choices when presented with these options
1 person will pay $100 more for the direct flight to save 2 hours and they might need to get to an office meeting ASAP. This is a common need for some travelers. Companies also save money in labor, hotels, and travel per diems by not flying out an employee the night before.
1 person will say, nah I'll save $100 and collect more sky miles and they go through Philadelphia and add 2 hrs to their travel. Many personal vacation travelers are notoriously cheap and book in advance and look for value over time.
1 person will say I don't need to be in Chicago before 1pm and I'm not getting up that early and connect through Charlotte and spend 3 extra hours over the direct flight and save $80. Sure you fly a bit more out of the way, but it is the best departure option at that specific time if that is what uniquely fits your schedule.
Then these prices and options will change as it gets closer to the date of travel. Some options get more expensive, some get cheaper, and some will be sold out. People searching online might not even get to see what it sold out and they never know it.
Also, the flight to Charlotte doesn't really exist solely for people flying and connecting to Chicago. It mostly exists for people going to Florida, throughout the South, lower Midwest, Caribbean, and further west. The airlines include it as option, in case the travel time fits someone's travel plans better or AA need to even off demand on their hubs flights as some routes are oversold and some are undersold each day. They will then price it accordingly as the demand changes on various routes in the whole system.
The airlines really want you to take the easiest, shortest routes and fly fewer miles. The issue is once the flights are set they are playing a game of price maximizing, competition, and changing in fluctuations of demand across a few thousand different origin-destination pairings. So they will offer any possibility and price it accordingly.
I travel a good amount for work, being from Atlanta we have good competition and flight options to major cities on multiple airlines. I am typically going to fly direct to NYC, MIA, ORD, or IAH, except in the rarest cases.
I have done some interesting routes in other circumstances, though.
I have flown LAX>ORD>ATL, because I was having trouble with an end of day red-eye flights on some days out of the west coast. When flying to Europe, I have flown out of every major hub in the country not on the west coast at some point.
I have flown connecting through MIA, IAH, and DFW before to get to Europe. Despite being in the opposite direction, it was the best choice at the time of booking. To get to a small city in Spain, I really needed to connect on a OneWorld Alliance flight on Iberian Airlines in Madrid. The Spanish city was mostly only served by Iberian Airlines (OneWorld). It isn't in an alliance with Delta. AA Connections from Atlanta through Philadelphia and NYC were too expensive, CLT didn't have a direct flight to Madrid at the right time and I ended up flying to Miami first to get to Madrid before connecting one last time.
A quirk of international flying that I have found. Atlanta is connected extremely well for a city it's size, but it is mostly through the Sky Team Alliance connections providing the most 1 stop options to smaller markets. Lufthansa and British Airways are One World and Stair alliance options, but they don't always connect me to smaller cities served in other countries through another local country's airline in that alliance. (examples.... Iberian Airlines, SAS, etc..)
Many people do fly direct, but many can't based on where they are flying to and from.... sort of the point of an air hub. Small and mid size cities only have so many direct flight options outside of flights to hubs.
Then there is an issue of competition. It depends on the origin and destination pairings, but sometimes there is only 1 airline that flies the direct route and it give them some market pricing power to increase prices, so 1 stop flight through a hub of another airline can be cheaper.
So Airline A has a direct flight option and 1-stop option. Airline B only has a 1-stop option. Airline B charges $100. So what airline A will try to do is price it for $150 to get people willing to pay more for the non-stop and then they will over a 1-stop option through another hub close to $100 to try to compete for those that want the cheapest ticket. This is one of several reasons flights in and out of mid-size and smaller cities can be more expensive.
To further complicate the issue, airlines increase or decrease the cost of a ticket closer to the day of travel based on how well the flight sold. Sometimes airlines offer cheaper tickets on a 1 stop connection, because those two flights are undersold and at the same time the first flight is mostly sold out and they are holding seats only for someone willing to pay an elevated premium price. Similar conundrum. The customer has to choose whether to shell out for the direct flight or to take cost savings by flying on the route the airline can offer the cheapest at that time, because the cheaper route was undersold.
Another complication is time of flight. There might be a direct flight, but at the hour you need to leave your fastest route home might be a connection. A direct flight is quicker, but a connection might get to your destination sooner depending on the time you can fly and what time each flight leaves the first airport.
Pretend you can't fly direct. For yourself you look at a map and and if you connect to Chicago it makes sense to connect through Detroit on the way to Chicago. It is on the way. But if demand was heavy on that flight or it is oversold at the time you need fly, flights through other hubs come back as cheaper. Most people would spend an extra hours on a plane for a cheaper ticket when they pay for it personally. From the airline's point of view, they know they can't fit everyone on the plane that goes a certain direction. They can get everyone to the final destination, but they're going to price each route to influence passengers to select different options when seats fill up and some will choose to pay more and some will choose to take price savings with a longer trip on flights that had weaker demand for that day.
With that said NE>ATL>ORD is an extreme. NE>ATL> West coast doesn't really add much time if you must connect. It won't be much different if you fly through Chicago, Detroit, DFW, Houston, etc...
Here is a random real world example. I put in google a flight from Portland, Maine to ORD for the early morning of May 19. (Forgive me this ends up being a comparison better suited for American Airlines and Charlotte. It was the first thing I tried and ended up being a great example and I'm too lazy to look for another)
There is only 1 non-stop flight to Chicago in the morning. It is at 6am for $394 on United Airlines.
AA has a 6am option with 1 stop (2.5 hours longer travel time) through Philadelphia and the price is $298, so there is cost savings using a connection.
They have no non-stop competition on that flight.
But say you can't make a 6am flight. You can't get a ride to the airport that early, the relative you're visiting wants to drop you off at the airport in their way to work, etc...
At 7:15am AA has a connection through Charlotte for $314. Total travel time is 6 hours vs. the 3 hour direct flight, but if you can't leave earlier than 7:15a it is what gets you to ORD in the quickest time at that point. The next non-stop flights to ORD are at 4pm and 5pm and all other connection options after 7:15a get you in later and/or cost much more.
Different people will make different choices when presented with these options
1 person will pay $100 more for the direct flight to save 2 hours and they might need to get to an office meeting ASAP. This is a common need for some travelers. Companies also save money in labor, hotels, and travel per diems by not flying out an employee the night before.
1 person will say, nah I'll save $100 and collect more sky miles and they go through Philadelphia and add 2 hrs to their travel. Many personal vacation travelers are notoriously cheap and book in advance and look for value over time.
1 person will say I don't need to be in Chicago before 1pm and I'm not getting up that early and connect through Charlotte and spend 3 extra hours over the direct flight and save $80. Sure you fly a bit more out of the way, but it is the best departure option at that specific time if that is what uniquely fits your schedule.
Then these prices and options will change as it gets closer to the date of travel. Some options get more expensive, some get cheaper, and some will be sold out. People searching online might not even get to see what it sold out and they never know it.
Also, the flight to Charlotte doesn't really exist solely for people flying and connecting to Chicago. It mostly exists for people going to Florida, throughout the South, lower Midwest, Caribbean, and further west. The airlines include it as option, in case the travel time fits someone's travel plans better or AA need to even off demand on their hubs flights as some routes are oversold and some are undersold each day. They will then price it accordingly as the demand changes on various routes in the whole system.
The airlines really want you to take the easiest, shortest routes and fly fewer miles. The issue is once the flights are set they are playing a game of price maximizing, competition, and changing in fluctuations of demand across a few thousand different origin-destination pairings. So they will offer any possibility and price it accordingly.
I travel a good amount for work, being from Atlanta we have good competition and flight options to major cities on multiple airlines. I am typically going to fly direct to NYC, MIA, ORD, or IAH, except in the rarest cases.
I have done some interesting routes in other circumstances, though.
I have flown LAX>ORD>ATL, because I was having trouble with an end of day red-eye flights on some days out of the west coast. When flying to Europe, I have flown out of every major hub in the country not on the west coast at some point.
I have flown connecting through MIA, IAH, and DFW before to get to Europe. Despite being in the opposite direction, it was the best choice at the time of booking. To get to a small city in Spain, I really needed to connect on a OneWorld Alliance flight on Iberian Airlines in Madrid. The Spanish city was mostly only served by Iberian Airlines (OneWorld). It isn't in an alliance with Delta. AA Connections from Atlanta through Philadelphia and NYC were too expensive, CLT didn't have a direct flight to Madrid at the right time and I ended up flying to Miami first to get to Madrid before connecting one last time.
A quirk of international flying that I have found. Atlanta is connected extremely well for a city it's size, but it is mostly through the Sky Team Alliance connections providing the most 1 stop options to smaller markets. Lufthansa and British Airways are One World and Stair alliance options, but they don't always connect me to smaller cities served in other countries through another local country's airline in that alliance. (examples.... Iberian Airlines, SAS, etc..)
You gave a lot.... still a lot is going over my head. I live in PA. My main airport I prefer is Middletown which is Harrisburg/Hershey's airport just in the small city of Middletown. It once had direct flights on a discount airline to Midway Chicago. Great deals I got. It had the big carriers with a direct flight also just much more pricey to O'hare. Then the airport lost the discount airline so I then chose Baltimore/Washington. I just got on the interstate and went south choosing it over Philly which was not one interstate.
Got great deals from there. Just was not much really cheaper to connect. I have though and had those that had a stop in Pittsburgh and one I took to NYC then to Chicago. Both were fine. I rejected going through Charlotte, but especially Atlanta. I in fact never did fly into Atlanta as added too many hours as I noted.
Was not cheap enough to me. Most times I had no set-time I needed to touchdown so time was not a issue. Time in the air was just not necessary. OMG Once the winter weather was sooooo bad in Baltimore. The airline literally bused us to Philly to fly out. I will never forget that. Went fairly smooth concidering.
Some may see Atlanta as a ideal location. Not sure from where? Sure if going into the South sure. IF the Northeast and other options from the King airports and I would book months in advance to get great fares.... just made no sense to me.
Going even to Florida has just too many cheap flights from even smaller airports over the years to need to chose Atlanta. I never even flew on Delta..... given it some thought. Has nothing to do with the airline or the airport itself. Mainly location and added hours and too many other flights I could choose.
I can see Dallas doing more as it is increasing. O'hare for decades was restricted from expansions and additional runways by residents living around the airport. That era did end finally and it has been getting what it needs and more runways and now upgrades with a new main Global Terminal. It will take a few years as all construction must go on while the airport is in operation.
At least it has a location that is central which was its pull and a major city and regional hub. Just it being obsolete the day it opened in like 1960's in already demand was at max and only to rise.... had the former Airport Midway it was to replace .... never ceasing operation as would have otherwise been the plan and that land opened up to new development. Midway cannot handle the larger jets so it is Discount airlines that use it.
Either way.... Atlanta's Hartsfield is what it is... A huge airport with nothing restricting it and endless expansions if needed. Still there are other cities whose airports were gaining in usage. Still Hartsfield maintained passengers title. It very well will come back. Just I still do not see it centrally enough located to be king yet it did.. Perhaps being cheaper was a key? Newer and larger also.
I have no bone to pick with Atlanta or Hartsfield so ..... just about my usage and yearly flights over the years that are all for a vacation especially now as things open up. Just too many cities to choose to fly from drive and park and go..... I plan to do amtrak also as a option I only did on a short trip once. Wide seats and no long search lines to get on the train. Can take all the luggage you one by your seat even..... long gone are my $99 air fares also I found over the years even on the big carriers straight-though.....
It may be unlikely O'hare will win busiest again. At least till full expansions are done. Its frieght handling went thru the roof and its facilities past limits and in need of more employees. Some still collecting unemployment benefits.
Title: Fed up with cargo congestion, freight forwarders flee O’Hare airport
Responsive service in Rockford attracts freighter operators to alternative Midwest gateway.
- There is so much cargo piling up at O’Hare that airline-handling agents for the first time in memory are actually renting warehouses in surrounding townships to hold the overfloww.
- Cargo volume by weight at O’Hare grew 14.8% in 2020 to more than 2 million metric tons and freighter flights increased 25% to 30,399, according to the Chicago Department of Aviation.
- Critically, international imports carried on widebody jets jumped 22%, more than any other major gateway in the U.S., including Memphis, Tennessee, and Louisville, Kentucky, home to the respective global air hubs of parcel giants FedEx and UPS, an analysis by consultant Logistics Capital & Strategy shows.
- The problem stems from the rush of ad hoc all-cargo aircraft being substituted for grounded passenger jets amid the travel downturn combined with the surge in e-commerce orders, inventory replenishment and ocean shipping backlogs that have companies turning to air to move their goods.
- The cargo volume is so overwhelmingly that some ground handlers, including those for China Eastern and China Cargo Airlines, are renting warehouse space in neighboring jurisdictions outside the airport because they can’t handle it all in their existing facilities, the forwarder said. In some cases, warehouse operators are subcontracting to competitors.
O'hare forever is in need to be BIGGER. Hartsfield is unlimited. Though you need to have increased facilities in place when needed and modernizing along with expanding. A PERFECT STORM BREWING ONCE FULL PASSENGER FLIGHTS RESUME .... AGAIN.
O'hare has the LOCATION. Needs the size it cannot gain fast enough. Its expansions are geared for passengers and years yet till completion of in-construction Billions $$$ to build.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet there are such flights offered.
