Hartsfield-Jackson remains No. 1 airport (Atlanta, Dallas: fingerprints, credit, hotel)

[testa50]

I think the Atlanta airport's layout is very close to optimal, with the one exception of international arrivals.

Airports with split, disconnected security areas are the worst--we should be very thankful not to have that problem. Many smaller airports have much worse peak wait times (owing partly to several security checkpoints--some will be clogged, while others are empty). For Atlanta, you can reliably arrive one hour before departure and be completely fine. Slightly longer on Monday mornings.

I strongly disagree MSP is a better connecting hub than ATL. The airport sprawls in every direction because its original design did not have its present size in mind. You can have walks on the order of one mile needed to get from one gate to another. To lessen this, they put in moving walkways and some shuttles that go to the far flung corners of the airport to cut down on the walking, but the whole experience is far less smooth than Atlanta's and the layout is very strange. They also have a completely separate, disconnected terminal complex for some airlines, connected by bus, which is also confusing.

Atlanta's airport isn't a thing of aesthetic beauty, but it's designed about as well as a mega-airport can be in terms of functionality.

[brownhornet]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Again, if you combined a city's airports...it would be

1. London
2. New York
3. Tokyo
4. Atlanta
5. Paris

World's busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a second airport, converting Dobbins would be the natural choice although I wouldn't blame Marietta for not being too keen on the idea.

And I would be first in line voting NO on that ever happening.

[waronxmas]

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.

Confusing? Fly in to LAX with a transfer to an international flight (or any flight) or having to transfer at Charles De Gaulle (or 10th level of hell airport as I call it) and tell me that again.

Yeah, there is a lot of walking but in order to be the worlds biggest, you know...

I don't understand what you mean by it doesn't serve the metro residents well? There is a MARTA station right in the terminal and if I had the money I could leave my house fly out to pretty much most of the world.

Originally Posted by cittic10

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.

Is Newark a common choice for Philly residents seeing as it is across the river from NYC? I would think that since it's 70 miles away, only the penniest of penny pinchers would choose to travel all the way to Newark to catch a flight?

Any way, this multiple airports thing: it's a tired argument. The reason being is that not all airports are created equal. Take NYC for example. They have two airports within their city limits and both suck. JFK is just big, dank, confusing mess and LaGuardia is basically a big station that just so happens to have planes that land at it. You can't take the subway to either one (the Airtrain doesn't count) thus you are stuck either paying a ton of money to take a bus, deal with the bus, or if you are luck you have a car/someone drive you (and then get stuck in traffic.) Sure, you could take several trains over to Newark from NYC, but I haven't encountered many people who do that as it is a pain in the butt for most residents.

I'll agree with you that Detroit has a nice airport. It's actually one of my favorite places to fly out of. But Hartsfield is no slouch in that department either.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by testa50

Airports with split, disconnected security areas are the worst--we should be very thankful not to have that problem. Many smaller airports have much worse peak wait times (owing partly to several security checkpoints--some will be clogged, while others are empty).

And you're basing this on what data? I don't have specific data either, but I can give you many anecdotes that refute this point, not to mention that when your flights all arrive/depart at/from the same terminal, there is no racing around on trains or moving sidewalks to get to your connecting flight.

I'm not saying ATL is a bad airport, but let's not be homers on this and call it "great" or "optimal." The international arrivals alone is enough to cause it to fall behind many other large airports. That experience is among the worst (double baggage claim anyone?).

[johnatl]

Originally Posted by neil0311

And you're basing this on what data? I don't have specific data either, but I can give you many anecdotes that refute this point, not to mention that when your flights all arrive/depart at/from the same terminal, there is no racing around on trains or moving sidewalks to get to your connecting flight.

I'm not saying ATL is a bad airport, but let's not be homers on this and call it "great" or "optimal." The international arrivals alone is enough to cause it to fall behind many other large airports. That experience is among the worst.

I'll take it over dumps like Logan all day long, every single day of the week.

There's a reason that new airports (like Denver) use the same design as ATL.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by johnatl

I'll take it over dumps like Logan all day long, every single day of the week.

There's a reason that new airports (like Denver) use the same design as ATL.

We can agree to disagree. Logan, JFK, Miami, Dulles, all beat out ATL in my opinion for simplicity and time to get to/from gates.

As for Logan specifically, gee....let me see....I can park under covered central parking, then walk directly to Terminal A, B, C, D, or E, go through one of a couple of security checkpoints right there next to the gate, and walk a couple of hundred feet (or less) to my gate. Yeah, that really sucks compared to parking a mile away from the terminal, going through one choke point where I usually have to wait in line, then take a train or walk a few thousand feet, before getting to my concourse where I then may have to walk another half a mile or so through throngs of people and beeping carts.

Oh, and at Logan, when I arrive on my long flight from Europe, I get off, get my bag, go through passport and customs, and I'm at the parking lot when I exit from the secure area. No double baggage claim, not double security, no trains, etc.

You are serious?

[testa50]

Originally Posted by neil0311

And you're basing this on what data? I don't have specific data either, but I can give you many anecdotes that refute this point, not to mention that when your flights all arrive/depart at/from the same terminal, there is no racing around on trains or moving sidewalks to get to your connecting flight.

I'm not saying ATL is a bad airport, but let's not be homers on this and call it "great" or "optimal." The international arrivals alone is enough to cause it to fall behind many other large airports. That experience is among the worst (double baggage claim anyone?).

Security Wait Times for All Major U.S. Airports

Atlanta comes in at 10 minutes average--certainly holding its own. I find the variance in Atlanta to be more reasonable than most airports--I'm through within 15-20 minutes without fail, except for Monday morning. At other airports, I find myself unexpectedly stuck in a 30 minute line regularly, in the middle of the afternoon, for no apparent reason. Variance is probably a good bit more important than average in this regard, but unfortunately I don't see much data on variance available.

I'm almost always returning rental cars in other cities, which means I have to deal with whatever little bus or whatever they have to handle that (Phoenix, Oakland, BWI, Logan, etc). Having a 60's-esque design that gets cars as close as possible to the gates is worthless for me (and, again, complicates security massively, with multiple disconnected security checkpoints like at Logan). The Skytrain in Atlanta is about as good as it gets for a large airport. Some smaller airports are walkable from the main terminal which is nice, but once an airport reaches a certain size that becomes less feasible.

I agree the international arrival situation is horrible. No doubt.

[johnatl]

Originally Posted by neil0311

We can agree to disagree. Logan, JFK, Miami, Dulles, all beat out ATL in my opinion for simplicity and time to get to/from gates.

As for Logan specifically, gee....let me see....I can park under covered central parking, then walk directly to Terminal A, B, C, D, or E, go through one of a couple of security checkpoints right there next to the gate, and walk a couple of hundred feet (or less) to my gate. Yeah, that really sucks compared to parking a mile away from the terminal, going through one choke point where I usually have to wait in line, then take a train or walk a few thousand feet, before getting to my concourse where I then may have to walk another half a mile or so through throngs of people and beeping carts.

Oh, and at Logan, when I arrive on my long flight from Europe, I get off, get my bag, go through passport and customs, and I'm at the parking lot when I exit from the secure area. No double baggage claim, not double security, no trains, etc.

You are serious?

As serious as I can possibly be. As far as Logan goes it's a big dump, has always been a big dump and it has the absolute rudest airport employees I have EVER encountered anywhere.

Another thing that sucks about Logan is the train station. It's across the road from the airport entrance, no where near the terminal - you can either shlep or wait for the connecting bus. Of course, you can always take the Silver Lie bus thingy through the tunnel.

If Logan handled ANYWHERE near the amount of traffic we do, it would be a complete and utter disaster instead of just a dump.

And it's funny, but your list of airports that you think beat out Atlanta is my list of the most dreaded airports to fly in or out of - Miami being at the top of the list. Miami? Really?

[tonygeorgia]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Again, if you combined a city's airports...it would be

1. London
2. New York
3. Tokyo
4. Atlanta
5. Paris

World's busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a second airport, converting Dobbins would be the natural choice although I wouldn't blame Marietta for not being too keen on the idea.

If we combined several skyscrapers in Atlanta they would be bigger than the empire state building.

If we combined the ga dome and Phillips arena it would be.larger than the cowboys stadium

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by MathmanMathman

Again, if you combined a city's airports...it would be

1. London
2. New York
3. Tokyo
4. Atlanta
5. Paris

World's busiest city airport systems by passenger traffic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a second airport, converting Dobbins would be the natural choice although I wouldn't blame Marietta for not being too keen on the idea.

And #4 in the World is great! Look at that league of cities we're in...