הכול
← Back to Squawk list
Backers push plans for 2nd Atlanta airport; Delta opposed
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]
Don't think that is a good idea.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.]
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.
.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
