U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-11-2019, 07:33 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles & Houston
1,406 posts, read 704,957 times
Reputation: 1470

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
I literally just posted why they are earlier in the thread.
You literally didn't do that, nor come up with compelling reasons why except for fluff. Be specific. Why are Atlanta's circumstances different than DFW, Phoenix, or these other major cities with multiple airports?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2019, 07:48 AM
 
Location: NW Atlanta
5,109 posts, read 3,617,534 times
Reputation: 2728
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
I don't see how Atlanta's circumstances are different. Imagine opening up an airport on the northside that an airline like Southwest would migrate to. Maybe they setup a new hub there and some low-cost carriers follow them. Now you probably have a net gain in jobs and economic output in the metro with a second international airport. Cramming it all into one airport just feels like a bragging rights thing.
It's more because all of the usual proposed sites on the north side of town would either get blocked/dragged into court (Dobbins/McCollum/Briscoe Field) or would be too far out from the centers of population north of 20 (the City of Atlanta-owned parcels in Dawson and Paulding counties). The latter two sites were purchased before it was decided to construct the current Midfield Terminal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 07:57 AM
 
1,588 posts, read 640,614 times
Reputation: 1381
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
You literally didn't do that, nor come up with compelling reasons why except for fluff?
Since when is ensuring the security of a Fortune 500 HQ and 30,000 jobs (many of which are good paying) "fluff?"

And frankly, that's a higher priority for me than making the life of someone who finds it inconvenient to go to the airport easier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 08:01 AM
 
1,588 posts, read 640,614 times
Reputation: 1381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulch View Post
It's more because all of the usual proposed sites on the north side of town would either get blocked/dragged into court (Dobbins/McCollum/Briscoe Field) or would be too far out from the centers of population north of 20 (the City of Atlanta-owned parcels in Dawson and Paulding counties). The latter two sites were purchased before it was decided to construct the current Midfield Terminal.
Not to mention, it will be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars to pour billions of dollars into a *new* airport while already pouring billions of dollars into the *existing* airport.

Meanwhile, we still wouldn't see any meaningful transit investment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles & Houston
1,406 posts, read 704,957 times
Reputation: 1470
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
Since when is ensuring the security of a Fortune 500 HQ and 30,000 jobs (many of which are good paying) "fluff?"

And frankly, that's a higher priority for me than making the life of someone who finds it inconvenient to go to the airport easier.
It's definitely more than just convenience, as I said and listed reasons in a post you replied to before this one. If Delta pulls their HQ out of ATL because there's another hub built then that's a Delta problem. United (as crappy as they are though have gotten a little better) doesn't do the same thing for Chicago. Is there a Wright Amendment type deal that Delta has, similar to what American had a DFW for decades? Like I said before, overall it'd be a net gain, but it looks like the worry is more Delta getting upset and moving the HQ to some other city. Atl would greatly benefit from two international airports on opposite sides of town.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 10:16 AM
 
1,588 posts, read 640,614 times
Reputation: 1381
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
United (as crappy as they are though have gotten a little better) doesn't do the same thing for Chicago. Is there a Wright Amendment type deal that Delta has, similar to what American had a DFW for decades?
Your comparisons with Chicago and Dallas are simply not reasonable.

1. Chicago Midway and Dallas Love Field were tiny airports that were landlocked by surrounding airports. They had no choice but to build much larger airports to accomodates the explosive growth in passengers. Hartsfield-Jackson, in the other hand, has plenty of room to absorb increasing traffic.

2. Delta controls an obscene amount of the market share in Atlanta and is the largest employer in Atlanta, whereas in Chicago and Dallas, United and American have always faced fairly stiff competition. So Delta can simply get away with more influence on development here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles & Houston
1,406 posts, read 704,957 times
Reputation: 1470
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
Your comparisons with Chicago and Dallas are simply not reasonable.

1. Chicago Midway and Dallas Love Field were tiny airports that were landlocked by surrounding airports. They had no choice but to build much larger airports to accomodates the explosive growth in passengers. Hartsfield-Jackson, in the other hand, has plenty of room to absorb increasing traffic.

2. Delta controls an obscene amount of the market share in Atlanta and is the largest employer in Atlanta, whereas in Chicago and Dallas, United and American have always faced fairly stiff competition. So Delta can simply get away with more influence on development here.
A second airport option would not have been explored if it wasn't a viable option. It was because overall it'd create more jobs and service for Atlanta residents (similar to all other metros of similar size), but Delta said no and Atlanta listened to them. I get it now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 11:13 AM
 
1,588 posts, read 640,614 times
Reputation: 1381
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
A second airport option would not have been explored if it wasn't a viable option.
And it wouldn't have been rejected if it were a viable option
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 11:23 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles & Houston
1,406 posts, read 704,957 times
Reputation: 1470
Quote:
Originally Posted by citidata18 View Post
And it wouldn't have been rejected if it were a viable option
Yeah rejected due to Delta. Lets say it was built and Delta starts pulling out flights because they're mad at ATL expanding the aviation industry. With Atlanta's location, all that would happen is another carrier (most likely United) would come in and fill the gates. Although not completely similar since the HQ had already moved due to a merger, United threw a similar fit in Houston and began pulling flights when Southwest announced plans to fly international from Hobby. So what happened? Other carriers came and took those slots that United opened at IAH. Overall a net benefit for Houston residents with cheaper flights and more jobs for the metro.

But Atlanta is completely different and needs to please Delta so they don't move their HQ. By the way, the second airport idea is still being floated by state officials. The biggest detractor is obviously Delta.

https://www.ajc.com/business/senate-...aLz95rd8S9BwJ/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2019, 11:44 AM
 
Location: NW Atlanta
5,109 posts, read 3,617,534 times
Reputation: 2728
Quote:
Originally Posted by DabOnEm View Post
Yeah rejected due to Delta. Lets say it was built and Delta starts pulling out flights because they're mad at ATL expanding the aviation industry. With Atlanta's location, all that would happen is another carrier (most likely United) would come in and fill the gates. Although not completely similar since the HQ had already moved due to a merger, United threw a similar fit in Houston and began pulling flights when Southwest announced plans to fly international from Hobby. So what happened? Other carriers came and took those slots that United opened at IAH. Overall a net benefit for Houston residents with cheaper flights and more jobs for the metro.

But Atlanta is completely different and needs to please Delta so they don't move their HQ. By the way, the second airport idea is still being floated by state officials. The biggest detractor is obviously Delta.

https://www.ajc.com/business/senate-...aLz95rd8S9BwJ/
The biggest detractors are the cost (would be in the billions) and lack of a suitable location on the north side of town.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Georgia > Atlanta
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top