[BBMW]

All I know is that the airlines purchasing decisions don't seem to reflect what your saying.

The reason you don't see the trend toward mega-airports in the US and Europe is that, we built airports, and big ones for their time a lot earlier than other places around the world. DFW, ATL, LAX, ORD, EWR, even JFK (which is fighting it's terrible initial design, but that's another thread), were built as commercial aviation boomed here before it did in the rest of the world, especially Asia and the less developed regions. Now the latter need airports, so they're building clean sheet of paper airports where then can. We've done this also (DEN), but where it would be logical to build new mega-airports (NYC is dying for one), there's no land, and, given that we're not a totalitarian dictatorship that can ignore what people want (see China), we can't just clear out several square miles in the middle of a major metro area, and plant a mega-airport. Even expanding existing ones can be politically impossible (see LAX).

[Willy702]

Originally Posted by Bruff

Willy, c'mon.
Why would there be "millions of fewer visits?" I say there will be millions more.
If your argument is 'proximity' (distance), you're out of date. Time is the new dimension. And aggravation.
Have you ever been stuck navigating that can of worms getting into McCarran?
Like, who hasn't? Everyone spends their first few attempts on a merry-go-round that consumes time and increases aggravation.
Starting anew will give us a chance to get it right.
As for getting to and from, the Shanghai Maglev takes 8 minutes for 20 miles. The New McCarran will be that same 20 miles.
All aboard!

I travel into Vegas about 15-17 times a year for business. Sometimes it is for as little as 3-4 hours and back out. If you make me get into town from Ivanpah I will cut at least half my visits, will be too much of a hassle and I will turn those meetings into dial ins. I'm sure there are plenty of others with their own reasons why they will cut down on the number of visits to avoid the hassle. Not to mention if you build a $10 billion airport the costs for the facility fees will have to go up so the tickets to fly in go up in cost. It may not deter most travelers, but some will decide not to go or will go elsewhere if the flight is $20 more round trip.

For you to say millions more will come is just comical. Come on we know you don't like McCarran but you are just spouting nonsense now. Some of your points are well taken and would be beneficial for development and for the community. But you have become like the politician who only points out items in favor and then acts like anything against your argument is irrelevant or a lie.

[Bruff]

Willy702
@"I travel into Vegas about 15-17 times a year for business. Sometimes it is for as little as 3-4 hours and back out. If you make me get into town from Ivanpah I will cut at least half my visits...(and) plenty of others will cut down on the number of visits to avoid the hassle , too)."

Again, c'mon Willy. Its time and hassle, not distance. You know as well as anyone that getting to or from or navigating in McCarran is not just a nightmare, it's a clear and present danger. When you learn from your (and others') mistakes the new build is always quicker and has less hassle. Especially here, where you've got thousands of clear acres and a clean sheet.

@"...to say millions more will come is just comical".

Again, look at Denver: 31 million pax/yr via Stapleton vs. 53 million now.
There the difference was in the millions: I say it would be the same for us.
If your contrarian view is supported with facts or example, please share.

@...if you build a $10 billion airport the facility fees will have to go up so the tickets to fly in go up in cost. It may not deter most travelers, but some will decide not to go or will go elsewhere if the flight is $20 more round trip.

Still not doing your homework. By law, the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program allows the collection of PFC fees up to $4.50 for every enplaned passenger at commercial airports controlled by public agencies.

@"...you have become like the politician who only points out items in favor and then acts like anything against your argument is irrelevant or a lie".

Again, show me where I'm wrong.

@"...we know you don't like McCarran but you are just spouting nonsense now. Some of your points are well taken and would be beneficial for development and for the community.[/quote]

To quote Dolly Parton when she had a wardrobe malfunction. "That's what you get when you try to stuff ten pounds of taters into a 5-pound sack!".
The future is the ten pounds of taters; now is the 5-pound sack.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by BBMW

All I know is that the airlines purchasing decisions don't seem to reflect what your saying.

I try to use statistics rather than opinions. In the last 15 years the large airports increased by 36% as opposed to 26% for commercial aviation. It seems to me that the Dreamliner slowed the process of bigger hubs, but it didn't stop it.

Originally Posted by BBMW

we're not a totalitarian dictatorship that can ignore what people want (see China), we can't just clear out several square miles in the middle of a major metro area, and plant a mega-airport. Even expanding existing ones can be politically impossible (see LAX).

Basically Japan has spent the last 30 years building on reclaimed land. I think we are going to have to resort to floating airports in LAX.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

Japan has spent the last 30 years building on reclaimed land.

When you look at the challenges others have faced (example Madeira, Portugal, where half the airport was cleaved from a mountainside and the other half built on stilts, or Hong Kong, where they leveled an island and are embarking on a $20B expansion), building an airport on a bought and paid for dry lake bed surrounded by nothin' and serviced by both interstate and rail is manna from heaven.

[Bruff]

Originally Posted by BBMW

we're not a totalitarian dictatorship that can ignore what people want (see China), we can't just clear out several square miles in the middle of a major metro area, and plant a mega-airport.

Oh yes 'we' (they) can. It's called eminent domain. And look for more of it coming to a theater near you.

[Bruff]

Here's a thought. Donate the site to Jeff Besos and Elon Musk. We'd get a new (privately-run) airport, Amazon's new HQ, a new city and a high-speed connection to SC. All in record time.

[BBMW]

Once way to thwart eminent domain is for the project to be so politically unpopular that no politician will touch it. Taking a huge swath of privately owned land (especially if those private owners are lots of small homeowners) will have exactly that effect.

Originally Posted by Bruff

Oh yes 'we' (they) can. It's called eminent domain. And look for more of it coming to a theater near you.

[PacoMartin]

Originally Posted by Bruff

Here's a thought. Donate the site to Jeff Besos and Elon Musk. We'd get a new (privately-run) airport, Amazon's new HQ, a new city and a high-speed connection to SC. All in record time.

Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are probably better equipped to promote the use of 3D concrete printing and special polymerized, fiber-reinforced concrete mixed to build an airstrips that float than they are hyperloop. A hyperloop requires large amounts of land, and you have to deal with the inevitable consequences of municipalities that won't support a transit system through their land without a stop. Since a hyperloop doesn't work unless the stops are at least 300 miles apart, the concept has more political problems than engineering ones.

While I am not saying that a floating runway won't have political problems (since no concept is politics free), but it is more of an engineering issue than a political one.

Someone of Jeff Bezos wealth could build a runway and make it available to tow to Southern California. If they reject it, he can always sell it in Latin America.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by PacoMartin

Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are probably better equipped to promote the use of 3D concrete printing and special polymerized, fiber-reinforced concrete mixed to build an airstrips that float than they are hyperloop. A hyperloop requires large amounts of land, and you have to deal with the inevitable consequences of municipalities that won't support a transit system through their land without a stop. Since a hyperloop doesn't work unless the stops are at least 300 miles apart, the concept has more political problems than engineering ones.

While I am not saying that a floating runway won't have political problems (since no concept is politics free), but it is more of an engineering issue than a political one.

Someone of Jeff Bezos wealth could build a runway and make it available to tow to Southern California. If they reject it, he can always sell it in Latin America.

There is a whole lot of stuff going down. I would think the autonomous vehicles will change everything. I don't think we even begin to understand the ramifications. I would think in terms of stepping off your plane and into a vehicles that takes you directly to your hotel with your luggage appearing magically in your room. McCarran enables that sort of thing. You could do it from Ivanpah but with large delays and complexity. And set up right you significantly improve the flow through McCarran.

It becomes clear we are on the threshold of electric air vehicles. A decade maybe. Fuel cells and hydrogen may be needed. But if electric gets cheap enough that all works. Now we have thousands of vehicles buzzing around the strip. And they have to be autonomous as humans would never keep it straight. kind of neat in a way...we may see the airplane in every garage as was expected after WWII. But no human pilots.

Going to be a real neat couple of decades. My sadness is that I am old and will not get to see most of it.