Hartsfield-Jackson remains No. 1 airport (Atlanta, Marietta: rental car, rental, house)

[nrgpill]

I'd personally rather have the "nicest", "most elegant", "most artsy/progressive", or the "most efficient" title over the busiest. It is something to be proud of however, but the title "busiest" can also sound like the "most bottlenecked".

[tonygeorgia]

I love being #1

[cittic10]

Originally Posted by Newsboy

"No other city this size in the country has only one airport."

1. Philadelphia
2. Detroit
3. Boston

Hello?

I'd rather have ONE BIG AIRPORT that's the BEST in the ENTIRE WORLD for what it offers, than multiple airports with multiple issues.

Only it's not the best in the world. It's the worst because it's confusing, too big, too much walking, and while it may be a big transfer hub, it doesn't serve the residents of metro atlanta very well.

As for Philly, they have a choice of a number of airports, newark, nj being a common choice. Detroit is broke and people are moving out of that city en masse, and boston can hop on a train and be at other airports in a reasonable amount of time.

[PeteATL41]

Hey Cittic, if you really think ATL is the worst airport in the world you must not have traveled much.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by cittic10

Only it's not the best in the world. It's the worst because it's confusing, too big, too much walking, and while it may be a big transfer hub, it doesn't serve the residents of metro atlanta very well.

As for Philly, they have a choice of a number of airports, newark, nj being a common choice. Detroit is broke and people are moving out of that city en masse, and boston can hop on a train and be at other airports in a reasonable amount of time.

Atlanta is confusing? The layout of the terminals is about the simplest design there is. While some terminals are nicer than others, the layout and design are simple IMO.

How does it not serve us well? It has flights to soooo many locations with no transfer required. That is a pretty nice benefit too. Its location is easy to access via highway and rail.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by RandyWatson13

When you fly all around you realize how good Hartsfield is.

Hartsfield does a pretty good job when you consider the amount of traffic that departs and arrives each day, but some of the aspects of the airport result in bottlenecks and delays that other airports don't suffer from.

Specifically, the security choke point is not an optimal setup. Funneling all gates and concourses through a single choke point that cannot scale is not a great solution. Many large airports have several terminals with independent entrances and multiple security checkpoints. To me, that's a much better solution, but Hartsfield does the best it can with that inherent limitation.

[brent6969]

Hartsfield is like a machine, it basically runs itself.

[RandyWatson13]

Originally Posted by nrgpill

I'd personally rather have the "nicest", "most elegant", "most artsy/progressive", or the "most efficient" title over the busiest. It is something to be proud of however, but the title "busiest" can also sound like the "most bottlenecked".

Its vital to our local economy. Who wouldn't want to be the busiest airport. That is why the airport is honestly pretty well ran compared to most and always getting updates.

[cqholt]

Hartsfield-Jackson is a great airport.

[neil0311]

Not sure if many of you are frequent travelers, but as one who is a frequent traveler, "great" is not how I would describe the setup of the concourses. During peak times, it can take quite a while to get to/from gates. Getting off an international flight is also a royal pain and requires going through security when you come OFF the flight, because in order to get to the terminal, you have to enter the secure area. That sucks, especially when you've been on a 10 hour flight.

Again, not as bad as it could be, and they do as good as they can, but not as good as some other large airports. Setting up one choke point for getting to all concourses isn't optimal.