Back to Squawk list
  • 22

Backers push plans for 2nd Atlanta airport; Delta opposed

נשלח לפני
 
Could Atlanta finally be on the verge of getting its second commercial airport? The idea has been broached many times during the past two decades in Atlanta, currently the largest U.S. metro area to be served by a single airport for commercial passenger airline flights. (www.usatoday.com) עוד...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


projectabove35000feet
PATFTF PATFTF 3
Don't think that is a good idea.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
It will just turn into another New York... With those 3 major airports and then other smaller ones, it is too much in too small of a space.. Not a good Idea.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
No offense, but Atlanta is no New York. (and never will be)

ATL has a much larger percentage of transfer traffic, whereas NYC has magnitudes more O&D traffic percentages.

The greater Atlanta area could support a second commercial airport.

It's so much nicer to have all flights connection through the same airport because it makes it easier to support the greatest number of flights to the largest variety of destinations as well as have the most frequencies departing from the one location. (Makes it a great hub).

However, having only one airport with a monopoly on commercial aviation leads to both higher fees and delays. A second airport with lower fees and fewer delays (faster turn times) allows more LCC penetration into the area.

Delta might not be too excited about having some competition. But the local passengers would benefit.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, with a 2nd airport, ATL area might generate more O&D traffic like DFW. While DAL has come on, with SWA over there a lot of O&D traffic hits there. Again, that might just be Dallas. It will all be interesting.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Good point. Lower fares do generate more traffic. Folks just looking for a cheap flight to a sunny destination will be well served by having a second cheap airport with fewer delays.

But not NY traffic. Atlanta just ain't New York. You're just not going to get NY level ATC congestion in Atlanta with or without an extra airport.

But by offloading some non-Delta traffic from ATL, it should help eliminate some of the delays caused by having too many airplanes trying to arrive or depart simultaneously from the same airfield.

Airlines at a cheaper, less congested airport would have a competive advantage. (assuming it's not far away from potential passengers without a decent way to get large numbers of people to the airport - as is the current plan). But if they were to find a better location (eg. to the east somewhere), they'd have a great combo of competive features.

ATL and Delta would both have to run a better operation in Atlanta. They'd have to provide better service, reduce high fees, trim the fat from their budgets, and give the passenger a better experience. Everyone would win, whether the used the new airport or ATL.
preacher1
preacher1 2
10-4, while not NY ATC congestion, their control zone is a good ways out in all directions, and as on DAL Captain says in this post, you take your life in your own hands trying to do VFR anywhere in that area anymore.

[This poster has been suspended.]

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
You must be misunderstanding. I don't think Delta runs a bad shop.

ATL is a monopoly. There are benefits to having all flights from the area coming into the same airport. Makes it so much easier for near and far flights to feed each other, etc.

If it weren't for the complaints of the high airport fees and delays from so many flights squeezing into one operation, there would be no need for a discussion.

But offloading some flights, even if just low-yield leisure trips, will relieve some of the congestion at ATL and reduce delays. Also the competition will force ATL to streamline operations, and to align their expenditures with passenger service. Expensive projects that don't improve operational efficiency and/or help provide better passenger service will be passed over.

I can understand that hub carriers prefer not to have the LCC and ULCC competition. But it does give passengers more choices. That's always better.

ATL would be better off with slightly less congestion. Delta would have slightly better on-time performance at ATL. Carriers who need lower fees and fast turns would have another airport option. Passengers would get choices.

----
But if the second airport is built as currently planned (so far away from people with poor road infrastructure), it would only attract ULCC service like Allegiant, so it wouldn't have much impact on ATL at all.



.

[This poster has been suspended.]

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
I've been through ALT in a while. I prefer to fly direct when possible. But I was impressed with the setup at ATL. I'm somewhat jealous that all flights to the city are at the same airport. I like airport plan with the midfield terminals and underground train (it's always been working when I was passing through), and I don't mind walking, so the long concourses don't bother me (even though I always bring my bag).

A smaller airport that's easier to get through might be preferable for some if the location is also convenient.

At the current planned location, you're right, most passengers at the second airport would be Allegiant type passengers, so part of a mostly new untapped market of folks who aren't flying now.

But in a better location, the second airport could be the primary closest airport for the eastern cities and an alternative to ATL. Such an airport would draw passengers from those eastern areas, and the eastern suburbs. Plus ULCC passengers would come from all over the region for the fares, at any location.

At such an airport, you could also have LCC carrier(s), as well as commuter flights from the other major carriers.

The one carrier that would be least likely to provide service at an alternate airport would be Delta, with such a large operation already based at ATL. International carriers flying into ATL for the transfer traffic would continue to fly to ATL.

But lots of leisure flights, as well as commuter connections to other majors' hubs could easily fly out of such an airport.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Also all those people who drive up to 10 hours because the fares are too high, will find the competition would provide more opportunities to fly out of either the alternate airport or ATL, when locally originating fares are more reasonable.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 1
Exactly. But Lets compare it something else besides the NYC area. Say, MDW vs. ORD, or IWA vs. PHX. Would the extra 20 - 30 mile drive from the business district or most residential areas be enough to drive further out to an airport that may not hvae delays or problems that the huge airport would?

The numbers would have been interesting to have for Manchester or Providence before SWA started service to Boston.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
MDW works very well for where it is situated. With a good people moving system you can land at noon, and be downtown in about 45min. At ORD, it takes over an hour to reach the city.
preacher1
preacher1 1
You really didn't need any numbers for KDAL; Herb just saw a need and had an idea that worked and it has kept on working by them staying true to their roots. Love 'em or hate 'em, SWA has made money when others haven't or have took what money they had left and went to play somewhere else. If they will stay true to their roots and original business plan, they will continue to thrive. If they try and step out of that envelope to "BE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE" then they will start seeing some negative balance sheets as well.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Any comparison is better than the busiest airspace in the world and the densest population center in the country.

But even Providence has an entire state of passengers to draw from, including a downtown with lots of skyscrapers filled with workers, and lots of universities, plus lots of people just over the state border for whom PVD is their closest airport. So there was already a substantial base upon which to build before SWA ever showed up to draw greater New England traffic that might've otherwise flown out of BOS. Providence is part of the NorthEast Corridor with an Acela stop. This stretch of Amtrak service between Boston, NY and DC is the only reliably profitable segment in the Amtrak network. An interstate highway runs past airport PVD, which in some spots is 10 lanes wide. A second perimeter interstate rings the city and brings passengers right to the airport's door. A third interstate splits off the main trunk to provide an easy ride for passengers from SE Mass for whom BOS would be an option, but PVD is closer and easy to reach.

Not really a fair comparison (even with PVD).

Providence is too much for comparison with the sparsely populated area in NW Georgia, where there are no cities and hardly any road infrastructure. Providence is even much bigger than the cities to the east of Atlanta. But being between Atlanta and those small cities would be better than not near anything at all.

Even the idea (below) to bring commercial aviation to Athens and use the existing road infrastructure to bring passengers from metro Atlanta (and other small nearby cities) would more closely mirror the Providence - Boston dynamic, even if on a smaller scale, and would make much more sense.
yr2012
matt jensen 0
It will never turn into a New York.

Chicago maybe - Chicago had three airports - ORD, MDW and Meigs (private). It no longer has Meigs - Mayor Daley Jr saw to that by plowing the airstrip.
DIRECTFLT
DIRECTFLT 1
Wouldn't it be more cost effective to prvide Non-stop Marta service to outlying areas, than to build out another airport. It's the traffic back-ups from outlying areas that is the real issue, and not the capacity of Hartsfield.
zcolescott
Zachary Colescott 1
Wow...I go into this airport all the time to visit friends on the field. Who'd a thunk it?!
preacher1
preacher1 2
While it might work at first with RJ's and the like, I would think they would have to do some runway expansion there to really get into any meaningful commercial operations, having only about 5500 right now.
zcolescott
Zachary Colescott 1
Not to mention RPZ clearing and geography flattening. They DO have infrastructure challenges to be certain. Not sure how this will fly. Lots to be done to even think about being 121 ready.
preacher1
preacher1 1
I'm a thinkin' they might do some industrial attraction and things such as that and hence make it a corporate haven but I'm like you, they got a whole lot to do to get anywhere close to 121 ready, let alone give Hartsfield any competition

[This poster has been suspended.]

PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Thanks for the valuable local info.

I gotuch the same impression. That an airport to the east of the Atlanta megapolis would be much better than anything out in a remote sparsely populated area west of the city, with poor interstate access.

I figured the local officials are drooling at the investment, though if may not be the wisest place to invest.

However, it seems to me that any airport on the east from LZU to Athens would work, provided there are cooperative local officials and communities that are not opposed.

Any alternative airport would provide an alternative for the high fees and delays of the ATL monster.

So while you say the ride wouldn't be much longer from LZU to ATL, if you add the delays and fees, many people wouldn't mind nit having to drive to ATL. In addition, may prefer to drive further for fewer delays, and lower fees, especially if it results in lower fares.

So it would make more sense to find a willing partner on the east side. Not only would such sn airport draw from the more populated eastern suburbs, but also the small cities to the east of Atlanta. That is if they hope to be a great alternative to ATL. Paulding only matches up to an Allegiant business model, which would be much kore limited than a mire desirable location.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
LZU biggest weakness is also its' biggest weakness.

Being so close to large population means a bigger market for your services. But it also provides more neighbors to object to the future aircraft noise of a potential upsized airport.
yr2012
matt jensen 2
LZU is in a highly congested GA316 area. Too many residentials and not enough room for overruns, unless you want to end up in Wally's parking lot!
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
* meant

LZU's biggest STRENGTH is also its' biggest weakness.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Charley Brown is nice but it's about landlocked
preacher1
preacher1 1
That West/Northwest side may be the only place that has any room to grow and as you say, I'm sure they are drooling at the investment, right or wrong.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
There isn't any decent roadway infrastructure out that way. Any airport to the east would be preferable from a planning standpoint. It would even be better to build an entire airport from scratch on a large tract of land between Atlanta suburbs and any of the cities to the east.

Having to get through the Atlanta megapolis, then take a small local highway with traffic lights and speed traps isn't much better than ATL. On many measures, it would seem much worse.

It may be all idle speculation at this point. seems like they have both the willing investors and the eager local partners.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, I think, if anything comes out of it, it will be industry as they have talked about and a corporate aircraft haven to support it. I imagine a 121 operation of any kind is a long way off and just another nightmare for ATC
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
I see what you say, but it makes sense to push for 121 right from the start. Getting commercial aviation brings ATC, control tower, and FAA participation in infrastructure costs.

A better location would make the airport more desirable for both commercial and corporate aviation. Allegiant passengers might not mind driving very far out of the way. But business jet users and everyone else prefer a convenient location.
preacher1
preacher1 1
As the old saying of "build it and they will come"goes, that part of the world may not be developed yet so the state/feds haven't spent any money on it. It is possible that as it does the infrastructure will come.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
A nice interstate past the airport would be nice. But given all red tape, it'll take years to conceive, plan, study, propose, then build the highway. It'll take at least a decade before we see useable asphault.

That part of the world could grow around the airport over the next few decades. So in maybe 30-40 years, Silver Comet could be the Long Beach or the Fort Lauderdale. But in those other locations there are sizable populations there already that can save a long commute to not travel to LAX or MIA. There isn't much out where they're hoping to site this airport. I can't see the point to sound so much building infrastructure where people aren't, when they're so much infrastructure need wheee there are people already.

Maybe I'm being short-sighted. But it seems to me we can't be spending public funds on pipe dreams, when there are already so many, much more needed infrastructure projects that won't be decades before it gets used.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Thanks. I should add any airport with sufficient land to extend the runway to a useful length for current and future commercial airliners. At minimum be able to easily accommodate 737s and A321s (after lengthening).
preacher1
preacher1 1
Haven't drove into there in awhile but last time I did it simply amazed me that the infrastructure for traffic was so pitiful for something so huge. As far as passing thru, it is big but that underground train can have you to another concourse split lickety. Of course, my luck is such that my inbound was always out at the end of one concourse, train in the middle and my outbound at the far end of another one. LOL but I have made a 20 minute connection there before, on DAL and my bags made it to, so it ain't all bad. Don't know what O&D prices look like out of there but everybody says MEM has them all beat as far as the expensive side. I do remember pricing one time though for a SAV trip, either out of FSM or LIT, can't remember, but it was cheaper connecting and going on to SAV rather than getting off in ATL and having someone pick me up and drive me down.
lee522
lee522 1
In my opinion it should be over on the WNW side of Atlanta in between Fulton County and Dobbins. Which would be PUJ. But what about south of ATL near like FFC or 4A0? really no matter what airport its closest too or it takes over, there will still be massive renovations and construction projects needed to be done in order for it to handle commercial activity. The easiest one would have been LZU bc all that has to be done is build a terminal and length the runway by 100'-200' and it would have been fine.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
If you want to put it WNW of Atlanta CBD in the vicinity of Dobbins, then you might as well make it Dobbins with the long runway (the longest in the area outside of ATL) and the buffer zones on either end of runway without houses and neighbors.

If Hartsfield can successfully share the runway between military and commerial uses, then the same can be done at Dobbins.
lee522
lee522 1
I dont believe hartsfield is shared with military. I know its used by the city of ATL and the state gov. but thats it. and you can't make it dobbins bc of Lockheed. They'd be 100% against bc of testing flights. thats why there's no houses. If a F-22 (when they were still building them at Dobbins) or a C-130 or a C-5 (back when they were doing the overhauls) feel out of the sky last thing you want it landing on is a neighborhood
vanbess
vanbess 1
it would make more sense in Kennesaw since that is right off I75 verse clear out in a small community
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
Sounds like a case of a bunch of investors desperately looking for a second airport in the Atlanta area. (for some pet projects).

The airfield may not seem ideal. But they may be choosing to dance with the only girl willing to dance with them.

The 121 flights may be just a front to get FAA investment at the airfield, in infrastructure and ATC. But it sounds like their primary interests may lie outside of commercial aviation.

It may nonetheless grow in a viable alternative to ATL, much to Delta's chagrin.
preacher1
preacher1 1
It will be interesting. Sad part is that somebody's $ are going into it, whether private or ours.
aeronicapilot
Andrew Duncan 1
This isn't the first time this investor has tried this:
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/18693946/briscoe-field-plans-face-key-test-with-tuesday-vote
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, this was about a year ago and right or wrong, as he said, he'll find someplace. One does have to remember though, that in the other 2 airport cities, those have been there for awhile and are firmly entrenched from another time in history. I really doubt the economics to put this together in the full vision he has will be there. He may not can develop 121 service but if he can get the FAA to work infrastructure $ toward that, he can make a nice private haven out there.
yr2012
matt jensen 1
Not only a bad idea, a stupid one to boot. City of Atlanta wasted taxpayer dollars in purchasing the land, then not building rail or bus routes to serve the airport. The roads would have to be widened to handle the influx of pax that might be visiting Paulding. The runway isn't very long either. There are two others in the immediate area that have better infrastructure and longer strips.
yr2012
matt jensen 0
KPUJ has 5505 usable - landing capacity of 22,680 kg for single-wheel landing gear, and 40,823 kg for dual-wheel.

RYY (Cobb) has 6305 usable
LZU has 6000
PDK has 6001
FTY has 5796
The best choice of all is MGE at 10000 usable.

ORD has a military side and been operational for decades.
tyketto
Brad Littlejohn 1
There was another squawk about this last week, but I'll add my comments here as well.

The concern here is distance; similar to Southwest serving New York, pre-EWR and LGA. It's a decent drive out to that airport for service, like driving out Luton, Stansted, or Gatwick from London. If it is doable, then it may be explored by those that don't like to incur the delays that ATL has, especially with being the busiest airport in the world (in terms of traffic).

LCCs may buy into this; This is a good way for the likes of a JBU, FFT, NKS, AAY, and others to escape the fees and delays of KATL; If TRS didn't have a good foothold at ATL, SWA could do the same. DAL would obviously object to it because they don't want passengers taken away from their baby.

either way, some serious renovations would need to take place there. 5500ft won't be enough for any decent transcon flight; that's roughly the same length that 19R is at KSNA.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Yeah, and that's bad tight for anything of size
lee522
lee522 0
In my opinion it should be over on the WNW side of Atlanta in between Fulton County and Dobbins.

כניסה לאתר

עדיין אין לך חשבון? הירשם כעת (ללא תשלום) כדי ליהנות מתכונות מותאמות-אישית, מהתראות טיסה ועוד!
אתר זה משתמש בקוקיות. המשך השימוש והניווט שלך באתר מביע את הסכמתך לכך.
סגור
האם ידעת שמעקב הטיסות של FlightAware נתמך על ידי פרסום?
תוכל לעזור לנו לוודא ש-FlightAware יישאר חינמי בכך שתאשר קבלת מודעות מ-flightaware.com. אנו מתאמצים מאוד להקפיד על כך שהמודעות שלנו יהיו רלוונטיות ולא מטרידות כדי ליצור עבורך חוויית משתמש מעולה. מהיר וקל לכלול את המודעות של FlightAware ברשימה הלבנה ואפשר גם לשקול את האפשרות ליצור חשבונות פרמיום.
סגור