Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Dallas
 [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)
View Poll Results: Do you think Dallas needs a third airport?
Yes 16 34.04%
No 31 65.96%
Voters: 47. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2023, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Lake Highlands - Dallas
702 posts, read 2,722,765 times
Reputation: 697

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bgNCATL View Post
We keep hearing about the metroplex growing north to the Oklahoma border. Whenever that happens then we will need a second airport up that way. Yes I said second, because I think Love field is pointless where it is. It will need to shut down and move north! DFW can cover the lower metro while the new Love covers the north!
No way! We live in our area, because we factor proximity to the airport and I know many around us do the same. The same can be said about people who live around DFW. It would be interesting to know how many frequent travelers live in Collin County and what airport they use most. My guess is they use DFW via 121, so leave Love Field alone!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2023, 11:58 AM
 
679 posts, read 273,702 times
Reputation: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by albert648 View Post
Airports have never been located in downtown cores or anywhere near them for that matter. There's no rational reason to spend billions of dollars building a brand-new airport with all the supporting infrastructure that comes with it when you already have an existing airport with capacity to spare.

If we're anywhere near seeing JFK-style delays and slot controls at DFW, sure.
Whoah... Tap the brakes. You're getting a little carried away. No one is talking about spending billions of dollars or building a brand-new airport.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2023, 12:16 PM
 
5,264 posts, read 6,401,147 times
Reputation: 6229
Quote:
No one is talking about spending billions of dollars or building a brand-new airport.

Sure they are. They are talking upgrading McKinney airport to commercial air service. Maybe it's not 'brand new', but it's a major upgrade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2023, 09:10 AM
 
679 posts, read 273,702 times
Reputation: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog View Post
Sure they are. They are talking upgrading McKinney airport to commercial air service. Maybe it's not 'brand new', but it's a major upgrade.
LOL. Indeed, not a brand new airport at all. And not Billions of Dollars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2023, 10:41 AM
 
8,181 posts, read 2,789,696 times
Reputation: 6016
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil capital View Post
LOL. Indeed, not a brand new airport at all. And not Billions of Dollars.
It's not billions of dollars....YET. Governments universally overspend on projects like this and universally overstate the benefits of such a project and universally understate its costs, usually to the point of complete fiction.

If Delta Air Lines wants to pay for the upgrades out of its own pocket, knock yourselves out.

Last edited by albert648; 03-18-2023 at 10:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2023, 01:33 PM
 
1,376 posts, read 1,082,936 times
Reputation: 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by albert648 View Post
It's not billions of dollars....YET. Governments universally overspend on projects like this and universally overstate the benefits of such a project and universally understate its costs, usually to the point of complete fiction.

If Delta Air Lines wants to pay for the upgrades out of its own pocket, knock yourselves out.

If this proposal were at all commercially viable, these big airlines would have started an advertising campaign for the bond proposal. The only people pushing for it are our pompous and corrupt city politicians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2023, 01:43 PM
 
8,181 posts, read 2,789,696 times
Reputation: 6016
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard123 View Post
If this proposal were at all commercially viable, these big airlines would have started an advertising campaign for the bond proposal. The only people pushing for it are our pompous and corrupt city politicians.
Which tells me this is nothing more than corrupt politicians wanting to set taxpayers' money on fire.

If it was commercially viable for the airlines, one of the big airlines would have paid for it in exchange for favorable lease rates or owning a stake in the new upgraded airport. A business case is far easier to get approved by a CFO or Board of Directors than a bond measure is to get passed in an election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2023, 03:12 PM
 
679 posts, read 273,702 times
Reputation: 454
Quote:
Originally Posted by albert648 View Post
It's not billions of dollars....YET. Governments universally overspend on projects like this and universally overstate the benefits of such a project and universally understate its costs, usually to the point of complete fiction.

Speaking of fiction... Nice strawman argument you made there. First you tell us there is no rationale for spending Billions of Dollars on a brand new airport. (That may or may not be true, but as pointed out a above, no one is planing either to spend Billions of dollars OR to build a new airport.)


Then you change your tune to a fiction that somehow they will end up spending billions of dollars (of course, STILL not building or planning to build a brand new airport, but who wants to dwell on facts?). If it ends up costing Billions of Dollars, that would be, at a bare minimum, 6 2/3 times the estimated price tag. Even for government work, that is highly unlikely, and in any event would almost certainly require them to go back to the voters to get the additional $1.7 Billion (minimum), if that price increase were to occur


How about we try to stick to the facts? Maybe there is (and maybe there isn't) a rationale for spending $300 Million to make upgrades to an existing airport to allow for commercial service. THAT is all that is proposed, NOT Billions of Dollars for a whole new airport.


Here's an article in today's Dallas Morning News about the proposed project. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023...sion-proposal/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2023, 07:16 AM
 
8,181 posts, read 2,789,696 times
Reputation: 6016
Quote:
Originally Posted by oil capital View Post
Speaking of fiction... Nice strawman argument you made there. First you tell us there is no rationale for spending Billions of Dollars on a brand new airport. (That may or may not be true, but as pointed out a above, no one is planing either to spend Billions of dollars OR to build a new airport.)


Then you change your tune to a fiction that somehow they will end up spending billions of dollars (of course, STILL not building or planning to build a brand new airport, but who wants to dwell on facts?). If it ends up costing Billions of Dollars, that would be, at a bare minimum, 6 2/3 times the estimated price tag. Even for government work, that is highly unlikely, and in any event would almost certainly require them to go back to the voters to get the additional $1.7 Billion (minimum), if that price increase were to occur


How about we try to stick to the facts? Maybe there is (and maybe there isn't) a rationale for spending $300 Million to make upgrades to an existing airport to allow for commercial service. THAT is all that is proposed, NOT Billions of Dollars for a whole new airport.


Here's an article in today's Dallas Morning News about the proposed project. https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2023...sion-proposal/
Fiction? All governments overspend on commercially unviable projects like this one. The initial budget is $300M. Add a digit for the actual at completion.

If there was any value proposition resembling commercial viability, the airlines would have been all over it already. There never has been, is not, and will not be any rationale for spending that kind of money at McKinney Airport unless they already have commercial service with one or two of the majors already lined up and the fees from that service are sufficient to pay off the project in a reasonable period of time - say 5-10 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2023, 08:23 AM
 
5,264 posts, read 6,401,147 times
Reputation: 6229
Quote:
If there was any value proposition resembling commercial viability, the airlines would have been all over it already.
You are making that up, and DFW airport is owned and financed by both Dallas and Ft Worth, not by any of the airlines. They might occasionally spend a few bucks to improve the terminals, but it's mostly tax money. There was even a proposal floated (somewhat facetiously) to sell DFW to private investors because it's currently close to its maximum value, and to get it off city payroll.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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 > Texas > Dallas

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top