Relief airport for Hartsfield-Jackson (Atlanta, Columbus: vs., rail, land)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
I agree that there's some potential as a sort of commuter flight base. Since most regional airlines have switched from turboprops to jets, their flights are reasonably comfortable nowadays. And there could be a niche market for people who want to avoid the hustle and bustle of Hartsfield. Whether there would be enough to justify another airport or two, however, remains to be seen.
That's exactly what's needed. Going to Hartsfield for a 45-minute flight to Jackson, MS, or a 75 minute flight to Tampa is a royal PITA. Even if you take away the actual time to get to the airport, just having to deal with security, the train, etc., is a hassle. I can be off the plane and to a cab in about 5 minutes in Jackson, and about 15 minutes in Tampa. It's an easy 30 minutes at Hartsfield, even without baggage claim.
It's an easy 30 minutes at Hartsfield, even without baggage claim.
I made that same comment that I thought ATL wasn't as great for passengers as other airports, and that the distance from gate to car was very long. I got jumped on by all the "homers" in that thread in the Atlanta forum.
I made that same comment that I thought ATL wasn't as great for passengers as other airports, and that the distance from gate to car was very long. I got jumped on by all the "homers" in that thread in the Atlanta forum.
Once again, there's a critical but somewhat subtle distinction to make:
Atlanta is designed for having tons and tons of layovers. 200 gates within an easy walk of one another--about 15 minutes from any gate to any other gate.
Airports that have security checkpoints very close to gates tend to be much worse situated for layovers. Tampa was mentioned earlier--can you imagine someone running that airport as a big time hub? It wouldn't work. Tampa's design is great for O/D traffic, but bad as a hub. Tampa only handles a measly 16 million passengers a year; that design just can't scale up to handle ~90 million.
When you design an airport for 90 million people (or more, since we are aiming to be well over 100 million in the near future) you have to make sacrifices. And Atlanta's design somewhat sacrifices on the O/D side in favor of layovers.
But in the long run, being good for layovers benefits O/D passengers as well. We have more flights than basically anybody else in the world. If you have to travel to a variety of medium and large east coast cities, you can usually find a flight going to that city every hour or so. Atlanta is the #1 flight link in terms of passenger volume for many, many airports: using Tampa as an example, Atlanta has more than double the traffic of the second-busiest route, which is Charlotte.
If we weren't so efficient for layovers, we would have a fraction of the traffic we currently do. Probably closer to ~30 million, which is the traffic level of PHL. And that would mean a whole lot fewer flights to places around the country and world, and hence a lot less convenience.
Once again, there's a critical but somewhat subtle distinction to make:
Atlanta is designed for having tons and tons of layovers. 200 gates within an easy walk of one another--about 15 minutes from any gate to any other gate.
Airports that have security checkpoints very close to gates tend to be much worse situated for layovers. Tampa was mentioned earlier--can you imagine someone running that airport as a big time hub? It wouldn't work. Tampa's design is great for O/D traffic, but bad as a hub. Tampa only handles a measly 16 million passengers a year; that design just can't scale up to handle ~90 million.
When you design an airport for 90 million people (or more, since we are aiming to be well over 100 million in the near future) you have to make sacrifices. And Atlanta's design somewhat sacrifices on the O/D side in favor of layovers.
But in the long run, being good for layovers benefits O/D passengers as well. We have more flights than basically anybody else in the world. If you have to travel to a variety of medium and large east coast cities, you can usually find a flight going to that city every hour or so. Atlanta is the #1 flight link in terms of passenger volume for many, many airports: using Tampa as an example, Atlanta has more than double the traffic of the second-busiest route, which is Charlotte.
If we weren't so efficient for layovers, we would have a fraction of the traffic we currently do. Probably closer to ~30 million, which is the traffic level of PHL. And that would mean a whole lot fewer flights to places around the country and world, and hence a lot less convenience.
First, it can easily take more than 15 to get from one gate on one concourse to another gate on another concourse. Be that as it may, I can accept your explanation that some compromises need to be made for a large hub, and that while the experience sucks, it's a trade off. The problem is that's not what was said in that other thread.
People tried to tell me that ATL has a great passenger experience and that at the other airports where the distance from parking lot or transit to the gate is much shorter the experience isn't better. Again..."homers" who can never seem to accept criticism of anything in Atlanta...and this is coming from one of the people who constantly defends Atlanta from unfair criticism.
First, it can easily take more than 15 to get from one gate on one concourse to another gate on another concourse. Be that as it may, I can accept your explanation that some compromises need to be made for a large hub, and that while the experience sucks, it's a trade off. The problem is that's not what was said in that other thread.
People tried to tell me that ATL has a great passenger experience and that at the other airports where the distance from parking lot or transit to the gate is much shorter the experience isn't better. Again..."homers" who can never seem to accept criticism of anything in Atlanta...and this is coming from one of the people who constantly defends Atlanta from unfair criticism.
It can be a long walk. I'll give you that.
The catch is, however, commercial airplanes are BIG. Once the new international terminal opens, Hartsfield will have over 200 gates. That requires a LOT of space, and not just for the planes, but the concourses, taxiways, runways, and the terminals themselves. I think it was no accident that when the current concourse setup was designed, they decided to scrap the spur-concourse layout in favor of the midfield concourse arrangement.
I really don't think the passenger experience is that bad. I'll bet that the rude customs officials alone hurt the airport's reputation a little. Hopefully they'll get retrained, or we'll get a new set of them, when the new terminal opens.
Airports that have security checkpoints very close to gates tend to be much worse situated for layovers. Tampa was mentioned earlier--can you imagine someone running that airport as a big time hub? It wouldn't work. Tampa's design is great for O/D traffic, but bad as a hub. Tampa only handles a measly 16 million passengers a year; that design just can't scale up to handle ~90 million.
To be fair to Tampa, it was designed and built a good 10 years prior to the current Atlanta terminal, in an era before security, x-ray machines, and metal detectors. I still remember getting on a "people mover" train at Tampa and going out to an airside terminal all without any kind of security check. Clearly that design doesn't work in the era of secure areas.
But your point is still valid: airports that make good hubs usually don't make for good O/D points.
To be fair to Tampa, it was designed and built a good 10 years prior to the current Atlanta terminal, in an era before security, x-ray machines, and metal detectors. I still remember getting on a "people mover" train at Tampa and going out to an airside terminal all without any kind of security check. Clearly that design doesn't work in the era of secure areas.
But your point is still valid: airports that make good hubs usually don't make for good O/D points.
Well for Tampa it's not that big of a problem. They are huge into tourism and wouldn't ever have really become an airline hub no matter what. So being a really convenient O/D airport suits them really well. Tampa's definitely not a bad airport at all.
I going to make my suggestion keeping three situations in mind:
1. An airport that could benefit some part of Metro Atlanta, relieve Hartsfield, be "feasible"+somewhat easy, and benefit another Georgia metro.
2. As close-in as possible.
3. Remembering the closeness/proximity and positioning of LaGuardia and JFK in the NY Metro.
My suggestion:
*Newnan/Coweta County Airport in Coweta County
(y'all gon' think I'm cra-cra, but I have good points)
Here we go--
1. The Southwest Metro is the closest-in, least-developed part of Metro Atlanta (less NIMBY issues, lower cost). 2. Far enough from Hartsfield not to conflict. 3. But close enough to Hartsfield so that connections can happen between the airports (could be linked by express rail eventually even). Mutually beneficial existence. 4. Will benefit Greater Columbus--and is still close to Greater Macon. 5. Superior Transportation access--right on I-85, potential commuter rail connection right at airport. 6. Not on Northside--so will benefit Metro Atlanta without hurting Hartsfield and making Metro Atlanta even more "top-heavy."
Personally I like Augusta Regional Airport, let's face it Augusta is growing very fast, has a large military precense and the newly mergered ASU and GHSU along with an increase in manufacting jobs, Augusta to me seems like a no brainer.
I going to make my suggestion keeping three situations in mind:
1. An airport that could benefit some part of Metro Atlanta, relieve Hartsfield, be "feasible"+somewhat easy, and benefit another Georgia metro.
2. As close-in as possible.
3. Remembering the closeness/proximity and positioning of LaGuardia and JFK in the NY Metro.
My suggestion:
*Newnan/Coweta County Airport in Coweta County
(y'all gon' think I'm cra-cra, but I have good points)
Here we go--
1. The Southwest Metro is the closest-in, least-developed part of Metro Atlanta (less NIMBY issues, lower cost). 2. Far enough from Hartsfield not to conflict. 3. But close enough to Hartsfield so that connections can happen between the airports (could be linked by express rail eventually even). Mutually beneficial existence. 4. Will benefit Greater Columbus--and is still close to Greater Macon. 5. Superior Transportation access--right on I-85, potential commuter rail connection right at airport. 6. Not on Northside--so will benefit Metro Atlanta without hurting Hartsfield and making Metro Atlanta even more "top-heavy."
There's more, but I'm tired of typing.
I would rather see the airport in Columbus continue to expand. The metro area is exploding with growth right now. The airport currently only has flights to Atlanta and Dallas. The airport recently met with U.S. Airways in Phoenix about bringing service to the city. Also, there are rumors of Southwest coming in. I know Columbus is only 85 miles from Hartsfield but there is no reason why Columbus couldn't grow their airport to become another option for people in places like Auburn/Opelika, LaGrange, Albany, Dothan, etc. Just a pain having to go to Atlanta.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
