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.
There is a second commercial airport in Pittsburgh area, besides Pittsburgh International. Its called Arnold Palmer regional airport, about 20 miles east of the city. but even a lot of people in the area don't realize how many flights it used to have. Just one major airline though. Although these days I doubt its running that many regular flights.
Actually, Arnold Palmer Regional Airport is 33 miles east of Pittsburgh. I can see how it's become more important, though, given that Westmoreland County is the second-most populous county in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, but is not convenient to Pittsburgh International Airport at all, which is located 14 miles west of Pittsburgh. In fact, Pittsburgh International Airport is equidistant from Youngstown, OH as it is from Latrobe.
Certainly not a major metro but Hampton Roads/ Tidewater (Norfolk - Virginia Beach) and surrounding where I now reside has 2 airports, Norfolk International Airport and Newport News- Williamsburg airport. The former is routinely setting new monthly passenger records, lots of planned improvements to the terminals & on airport hotel in the works too. The latter however struggling to attract airlines, almost no flights and think only AA goes there now. Getting squeezed on opposite ends by Norfolk and Richmond which is just up the roads and I am not sure how much longer it can remain viable, if it even is anymore.
Everett is 5 miles closer to Seattle than Tacoma, and has an international airport. There is also the King County airport in Renton, so a total of 3 in the Seattle area. Nonetheless, the combined capacity is now insufficient for the traffic, and another airport location is being studied.
I know, that post was from 2012 before they had service to Everett/Paine Field.
Salt Lake City is a relatively small metro and has at least 3 commercials airports: SLC, Provo, and Ogden. The last one only has one commercial flight starting in a few days (Breeze Airways to Orange County/John Wayne).
I think Denver has a Centennial airport, but to me something that size is insignificant for the most part.
Denver has Colorado Springs and (currently unused) Fort Collins within its wider area. But DEN can expand pretty much forever, so the case for a second airport is not nearly as strong there as it might be in other areas.
I really enjoy PHL, and I think it’s a better airport than people give it credit for; however, I wish that more carriers served it. I think that Turkish Airlines would be a great fit given the international connectivity that its network offers. Also, I wish that we had at least one Asian destination in the mix. Philadelphia-Tokyo is a reasonable route that could be done by either AA or Japan Airlines. Philadelphia-Shanghai could also work.
I was going to respond and say that PHL's runways are too short to support flights to Asia, but then I looked and saw that Runway 9R-27L is now 12,000 feet long. Didn't used to be that long, back when I lived in Philadelphia and flew in and out of that airport. It used to be that this runway was too close to the parallel Runway 9L-27R, so both of them could not be used in IFR conditions. This meant that PHL was subject to massive delays in bad weather. I don't know if either runway has been moved since then, or if it's still an issue.
No it doesn't. It has one major airport, BWI, which is located about 11 miles (driving distance) from downtown Baltimore. Baltimore also benefits from having two major airports on its fringes: DCA at 43 miles away and IAD at 62 miles away.
Washington, DC has one major airport and benefits from having two others not too far away. DCA is a scant 5 miles from the White House. IAD is about 28 miles away and BWI is about 36 miles away.
I was going to respond and say that PHL's runways are too short to support flights to Asia, but then I looked and saw that Runway 9R-27L is now 12,000 feet long. Didn't used to be that long, back when I lived in Philadelphia and flew in and out of that airport. It used to be that this runway was too close to the parallel Runway 9L-27R, so both of them could not be used in IFR conditions. This meant that PHL was subject to massive delays in bad weather. I don't know if either runway has been moved since then, or if it's still an issue.
I believe it's an issue. For IFR operations, you need parallel runways 2,500' apart. Philly's appear to be about 1,400' using centerlines. (It looks like there's theoretical potential to kick all the users near the river out and do a shorter runway there with adequate distance. Maybe that could eliminate the problem by taking care of at least single-aisle planes.)
In the 00s, Sea-Tac built a new runway by turning a plateau into a valley at a cost of billions. Suddenly they're not restricted the 40% of the time when it's overcast or rainy.
The OP's question seemed to be, "is it better to have one airport or several?"
For LA, the answer is clearly "several." Even if LAX had room to grow,
it's much better that people have other options (Burbank, Long Beach, Orange County, Ontario),
given how sprawling the region is (all the more so because LAX is not centrally located, but instead
is right by the Pacific Ocean). Also, the small airports are more passenger-friendly than a giant airport
is capable of being.
It depends on the size of the city, as well as other factors.
LA is too large for a single airport in practical terms. Even if the airport was centrally located (DTLA or City of Industry?), Much of the city is literally 40-50 miles away There's a limit to planes in close proximity, regardless of runway spacing. Logistics on the ground can get ridiculous.
Atlanta shows that I might be wrong. The city is extremely spread out, and the hub effect gives it traffic levels that probably rival LA's combined airports (which I'm being too lazy to look up).
Some cities clearly don't need two. They're struggling to fill the terminals they have, and they aren't that big.
Seattle isn't too big for one airport, but its linear so distances are a problem. Everett is a little over 30 miles north of Sea-Tac as the crow flies, but must be 35-40 on the ground. Sea-Tac is south central to the metro, while Everett is pretty far north. If Everett can turn into a decent-sized operation vs. the tiny current one it'll be a good pair.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,550,614 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
No it doesn't. It has one major airport, BWI, which is located about 11 miles (driving distance) from downtown Baltimore. Baltimore also benefits from having two major airports on its fringes: DCA at 43 miles away and IAD at 62 miles away.
Washington, DC has one major airport and benefits from having two others not too far away. DCA is a scant 5 miles from the White House. IAD is about 28 miles away and BWI is about 36 miles away.
This is just semantics. The DC area has 2 major airports, Baltimore has one. The DC-Baltimore CSA region has 3 major airports. Not that complicated. Not even 5 percent of that CSA population lives in the downtown of either city. KB just trolls intentionally about Baltimore getting overlooked by DC, and you've fell in that trap.
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.
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.
