Study: Nowhere to put second Atlanta airport (Dawson, Jackson: hotels, houses)

[Febtober]

Originally Posted by testa50

I guess to me, given that we are able to fly a small plane using only solar panels right now, it doesn't seem too inconceivable a greater hybrid potential will be available in the next decade or so.

Also, there is a ton of room to improve fleet economy with old technologies, just as is true with standard petrol cars.

Speaking as someone who has a degree in and works in the aviation industry, I can guarantee you that won't see a solar powered aircraft capable of carrying any meaningful load of passenger in the next decade. Our lifetime, maybe, but even that's a shot in the dark.

Consider Boeing's new airframe currently under development, the 787. Research on it began in the 90's and it just made its first flight in late 2009, and now has a targeted date to actually enter service later this year or possibly 2012.

And that's just an update to the same basic aircraft design that's been with us since the first jet powered aircraft.

To pick another random example, research into what would eventually be known as the 767 began in 1972. Construction of a prototype started in 1979, and it actually entered service in 1982.

[psulions2007]

The NE side of Atlanta would be a great place... between Gainesville and Gwinnett.

[K-SawDude]

Originally Posted by testa50

?

Video: Solar Airplane’s Maiden European Flight | Autopia | Wired.com

Very cool! But yes, as Ansley notes, I meant solar COMMERCIAL airlines. I'd love to see increased fuel economy for planes as much as any and all other forms of transportation. But my point was that I'm not sure technological advances in planes' fuel economy will be able to keep up with rising fuel costs in the long run. This is obviously a problem for cars, too. But planes are already dependent on significant subsidies, especially in smaller markets/airports. I just don't see how the industry will be sustainable in the long term (but I hope I'm wrong!).

[lodsa]

Originally Posted by psulions2007

The NE side of Atlanta would be a great place... between Gainesville and Gwinnett.

I would also include the far north, such as Cumming/Canton. Dobbins really won't make much difference traffic wise, and it would hurt East Cobb, one of the last few nice areas of the Atlanta metro.

[Caleb Longstreet]

Originally Posted by flyonpa

Link to Exec summary of Report => http://www.atlanta-airport.com/docs/...iveSummary.pdf

Good job on supplying this info. I read the summary entirely. It seems to me that OVERALL, the best site would be Dawson/Forsyth. The land cost acquisition seemed skewed too high but, considering the locale and whom it would be targeted to serve (the more congested northern part of the city) seems more logical than Dobbins. Dobbins major plus is the relatively low cost to make it operational. However, considering that Hartsfield is merely 30 minutes away relatively on the same side of town doesn't add that much value.

There are over 800,000 residents in Cobb, however, there are 850,000 in Gwinnett. Dobbins wouldn't add much to them at all.....Dawson/Forsyth is better as it could be accessed by Cobb, North Fulton, Fulton, parts of DeKalb and Gwinnett a bit more easily. Some things to note and question:

1) Time. For Dawson/Forsyth...112 minutes??? If that's true, get GDOT on the phone and start widening.....hey, and speaking of, Ga 400 is a STATE hwy....easier to get that wider than say a Federal hwy????? besides, you can add more unwanted toll booths to fund it.....

2) City of Atlanta chaired the survey.....well, they own the airport so that makes the entire exercise circumspect.

3) Revenues.....City makes no profit on the Airport but, how about them votes!!!!!!

4) Pollution: Non-issue...can't get much worse than it is....

5) Traffic: Adds to the North, REDUCES the most heinous traffic to the South...I owned an Airport Shuttle company. 1 out of 10 heading South on 400 on Monday morning were headed to the airport.....Fridays, one out of 10 heading North....and I am being very, very conservative.....

6) Land Cost....are you kidding??? Since when would you plan to pony up 523 million for that land??? I know one of the heirs to the Williams Lumber grab and he would sell you his 1,000 acres for considerably less...only 400 shy from what you need and the last time I was on his property, there was an adjacent, bankrupt golf course next door, chicken coops to the north, and meth heads to the East.....trust me, it won't cost 1/2 a billion to acquire...who are you kidding????

7) Equipment....No, you really, really don't have to start off with the ability to get 757's coming and going...if you could do that, you could also conceivably add 767's.....why not keep it at 737's (200-400 series) and below or better yet, regional jets such as Folker and Embraer....we don't have to fly to France....just to most cities in the US...wipe out most regional traffic from Hartsfield, watch on-time performance soar...considering Hartsfield is 2 hours flight time, or less, from 80% of the US population, we would be able to enjoy the same logistic benefit? I would think a 7,000/8,000 ft runway would be fine. Hey, keep a 3 degree slope and use it both ways to let gravity help like some runways in america and countries beyond? I think the pilots could handle it....ask them. Need to go to France? Go to Hartsfield. Need to get to Memphis and back in the same day? This would be fine???

8) Geography. Dawson/Forsyth is mentioned. Why not Dawson/Lumpkin/White???? Juuuuuuuuust East of Ga 400....drop a blade and start pushing.....

The region would support it, it wouldn't need 4, 5, 6, or even 8 runways...2 to start would be PLENTY. Perhaps a shorter 3/4 for dedicated private (more revenue) and short/small regional craft (50 seats or less?)

[Febtober]

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

3) Revenues.....City makes no profit on the Airport but, how about them votes!!!!!!


7) Equipment....No, you really, really don't have to start off with the ability to get 757's coming and going...if you could do that, you could also conceivably add 767's.....why not keep it at 737's (200-400 series) and below or better yet, regional jets such as Folker and Embraer....we don't have to fly to France....just to most cities in the US...wipe out most regional traffic from Hartsfield, watch on-time performance soar...considering Hartsfield is 2 hours flight time, or less, from 80% of the US population, we would be able to enjoy the same logistic benefit? I would think a 7,000/8,000 ft runway would be fine. Hey, keep a 3 degree slope and use it both ways to let gravity help like some runways in america and countries beyond? I think the pilots could handle it....ask them. Need to go to France? Go to Hartsfield. Need to get to Memphis and back in the same day? This would be fine???

In line with the revenue, while the City doesn't get to take any money away from the airport, it is a massive generator of direct and induced economic activity.

Also, last I heard, the average passenger load on an aircraft at Hartsfield was around 117. I used to be a ramp controller there and can attest to the fact that probably 70% of the traffic is of the regional variety, just buzzing around all damn day like gnats.

I think a two runway airport would be fairly simple. Like you said, a main runway around 7,000 feet and a secondary somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,000-5,000 for general aviation guys. Or make them both 7,000 and intersecting, depending on the local wind in the area.

HPN up outside of New York City has a 6,548' runway that gets used by JetBlue A320s all day long and can also accept 737-800s (although the only ones that go in there are BBJs). Taking off on runway 16 means your going up a bit of a hill as you mentioned, so on hot/humid days it can mean that a few passengers get bumped off some of the poorer performing aircraft, but that's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

[crazynip]

No sh1t, I wonder how many MILLIONS were spent on something everyone already knew...

[Akhenaton06]

Total BS. Plenty of land in the outer counties for a second airport. I second the mention of northern counties like Cherokee and Forsyth.

[billl]

Originally Posted by Caleb Longstreet

There are over 800,000 residents in Cobb, however, there are 850,000 in Gwinnett. Dobbins wouldn't add much to them at all.....Dawson/Forsyth is better as it could be accessed by Cobb, North Fulton, Fulton, parts of DeKalb and Gwinnett a bit more easily.

Absolutely! If the intended audience is North Fulton and Gwinnett, then Dobbins is a very poor choice. Getting there during the morning rush is no better than going to Hartsfield.

4) Pollution: Non-issue...can't get much worse than it is....

Well, yes it can. Ever been to Seoul or Beijing? Or even LA on a smoggy day?

[AcidSnake]

Why would the Air Force need to leave? There are plenty of airports all over the country who share their airstrips with the military.

Pittsburgh International Airport shares its air strip with the Air Force Reserves. St Louis's International Airport is shared with the Missouri Air National Guard along with reserve elements from the Navy & Marine Corps. Finally, our own Georgia Air National Guard's main area of operations is located at the Savannah International Airport.

I just don't think that the Air Force's mission in metro Atlanta needs to be diminished just to make room for another full-scale commercial civilian airport. There's enough room for both players, provided that our local politicans & business leaders posesses the vision necessary to see it that way.

Originally Posted by arjay57

Dobbins would be great if the Air Force would decide to get out of there. I know that's been discussed a number of times over the years.