Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

colin

Duelling Airports

16 posts in this topic

I can think of five metro areas with two viable passenger airports: NYC, Chicago, DC, Dallas and Houston.

LA is arguable, but I do usually put it in that list as well.

Anyway, about a year ago, Southwest Airlines decided that they might want to move their Sea-Tac operations to Boeing Field, which had no passenger service, because Seattle had the highest operating costs of any of their cities (this is before service to Denver started).

This caused quite an uproar in Seattle, not only because of the introduction of the two airport system, as well as the money needed to expand Boeing Field for the introduction of passenger service.

Southwest is actually almost solely responsible for Houston, Dallas and Chicago all having two airports.

Phoenix has been discussing using a suburban airport and former airbase to the southeast as a new airport instead of expanding Sky Harbor.

Also, I believe that Vegas has discussed a similar proposal.

I don't see too much of an issue with it in cities like NYC, Chicago and DC, where the two airports can be traveled between via public transit (I know that La Guardia requires a bus, but I did it, and it's really not that hard). However, in Houston specifically, I don't see how people travel between the airports with the state of public transit in that city. I believe Continental even offers a service from IAH to Hobby.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Boston has three airports. Logan, which is practically Downtown. Then two regional airports. T.F. Green south of Providence, RI and Boston-Manchester Regional Airport in New Hampshire. The two regional airports are about 60 miles north and south of Boston. A project breaks ground Monday to bring commuter rail service from Boston to the airport in Rhode Island, and there is a proposal to bring rail to the airport in New Hampshire. There's another regional airport in Worcester, MA but it sees very little service, and an airbase just outside Boston that sees a lot of private aircraft service, but no airlines.

Rather than dueling though, I believe the airports compliment each other. The regional airports are most popular with people just outside of Greater Boston (outside the Route 128 loop). Logan is the international airport for the region, drawing passengers from across New England. Logan is so busy, the regional airports help relieve the pressure on, and as there is little likelyhood of Boston getting a true second airport closer to the city, the regional system is the best way to move people in and out of the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boston has three airports. Logan, which is practically Downtown. Then two regional airports. T.F. Green south of Providence, RI and Boston-Manchester Regional Airport in New Hampshire. The two regional airports are about 60 miles north and south of Boston. A project breaks ground Monday to bring commuter rail service from Boston to the airport in Rhode Island, and there is a proposal to bring rail to the airport in New Hampshire. There's another regional airport in Worcester, MA but it sees very little service, and an airbase just outside Boston that sees a lot of private aircraft service, but no airlines.

Rather than dueling though, I believe the airports compliment each other. The regional airports are most popular with people just outside of Greater Boston (outside the Route 128 loop). Logan is the international airport for the region, drawing passengers from across New England. Logan is so busy, the regional airports help relieve the pressure on, and as there is little likelyhood of Boston getting a true second airport closer to the city, the regional system is the best way to move people in and out of the region.

I have to take issue with this. Boston has two airports. Logan and Manchester-Boston airport in Manchester , N.H. Providence has long had an independent airport that served the Providence metro area. The addition of Southwest Airlines allowed an increased catchment area for the airport that expanded into the Logan catchment area. It did allow pax that lived within 30 miles of both Logan and Green now to have a choice of airports because of competitive fares. The idea that PVD is a Boston airport gives the allusion that it receives funds from the State of Massachusetts and could not exist without Massachusett residents choosing Green to fly from it. In fact PVD before SW (1996) was handling nearly 2.5 mill pax a year. This number gives it a medium hub designation similar to BDL (Hartford's airport).

PVD is a regional airport serving all of Rhode Island, Eastern Ct, and Central and Southeastern Massachusetts. Most of Southeastern Mass. is part of the Providence metro area of 1.4 million residents. Logan is the New England regional airport for international flights. This excludes parts of Ct. If Manchester-Boston wants to be a Boston regional airport, let them be just that. T.F. Green has long been a hub by itself and will continue to be so. The beauty of all this is that a good sized airport is always within reach in New England and you can get the right fare at one of these airports without more than a two hour drive.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without direct rail service, Manchester is really a Boston airport in name only. Regardless of where funding comes from, Green is very much a Boston Airport, not techincally, but in practice. And I think Rhode Island should be happy for that as we get to siphon off landing fees and car rental taxes and whathaveyou that would have otherwise gone to Massachusetts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

providence has rail service to boston... a 15-20 min bus ride from green gets you into providence and then puts you on the train to boston. manchester is hardly a boston airport with no easy way from manchester to boston. but the fact remains that a lot of people in the boston metro (which i loosely define as the 495 loop) travel to manchester or providence because those airports are much easier to deal with for many flights (and cheaper). having southwest also makes them attractive to many people who love southwest.

also... NYC metro has more than 2 passenger airports... NYC alone has laguardia and JFK, but there's also newark nearby.

to answer the original question... i think expansion in many places is necessary. NYC metro has the population to support all 3 airports, as do many other metros. boston's population (95/128 loop that cotuit mentioned) can't really support another airport in that immediate area, but having providence and manchester not that much farther is good. they both could use expansion, providence especially, to at least support non-stop flights to the west coast. in these cases, expansion is necessary. unless connecting flights in teh same city at different airports can be easily connected by public transit, there is a real need for expansion (philly's airport for example needs more runways, one problem and the whole airport is closed... i have yet to fly to or from PHL and not be delayed for some reason, usually related to a problem at PHL).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Port Authority of NY/NJ which runs all 3 of the big New York airports has actually declared that NY is in need of a fourth airport. The biggest problem is figuring out where to put it. In addition to the 3 big airports, there is Islip on Long Island, Stewart upstate and Teterboro in NJ which handles most of the executive/corporate jet travel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Port Authority of NY/NJ which runs all 3 of the big New York airports has actually declared that NY is in need of a fourth airport.

If Acela were a true European/Japanese style bullet train, then NYC wouldn't need a fourth airport. So many NYC flights are to Boston and DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boston's population (95/128 loop that cotuit mentioned) can't really support another airport in that immediate area

Well, I do think Greater Boston could support an official second airport, Hanscom and Weymouth have both been looked at as locations for a second airport in the past. The communities those airports are in want nothing to do with it though. With the rise of T.F. Green, future rail to Manchester, and the potential of Worcester, the need for a second airport inside 495 has lessened. To show how much of a Boston Airport T.F. Green is, one of the locations considered for a second 'Boston' airport, was Otis Air Base on the Cape, further from Boston than T.F. Green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Well, I do think Greater Boston could support an official second airport, Hanscom and Weymouth have both been looked at as locations for a second airport in the past. The communities those airports are in want nothing to do with it though. With the rise of T.F. Green, future rail to Manchester, and the potential of Worcester, the need for a second airport inside 495 has lessened. To show how much of a Boston Airport T.F. Green is, one of the locations considered for a second 'Boston' airport, was Otis Air Base on the Cape, further from Boston than T.F. Green.

New Bedford WAS trying to be Boston's second airport too (or maybe more Providence's alternative) until the runway extension got shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atlanta is the largest one-airport city in the US. This is, I believe, one of the reasons they are the highest passengered airport in the world. I guess it offers less competition for flyers, meaning more expensive flights...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(philly's airport for example needs more runways, one problem and the whole airport is closed... i have yet to fly to or from PHL and not be delayed for some reason, usually related to a problem at PHL).

This is a region that needs a second airport. Trenton would love to be that. Eastwind tried to make Trenton a hub for their service, but it did not catch on. ACY is just too far away from downtown Philly although there is good connecting train service.

The question is why Deleware does not have service at the Newark/Wilmington Airport? It is a large business airport with many hotels around it and I-95 nearby. There is a large business community also at Wilmington.

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detroit's going to be duelling for airlines when Northwest goes down. Big city. Central local. Competition is good but a major airline is needed with all of the expansion and minimal airline business. That's the new way. Learn from Detroit. It'll never be as big as Hotlanta or Chi-ca-go but with 20 million customers a year it's going to need some airlines. over 6 million rely upon it!

Peace to you and Peace to Detroit,

It Shall Rise from the Ashes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Atlanta is the largest one-airport city in the US. This is, I believe, one of the reasons they are the highest passengered airport in the world. I guess it offers less competition for flyers, meaning more expensive flights...

Don't forget Atlantas' second largest carrier is a discount airline(Airtran).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Twin Cities get away with this by having 2 terminals. One terminal services many of the major airlines while the smaller, Humphrey terminal services smaller airlines.

THat will change, however, with the major expansion of the humphrey terminal. Lindbergh terminal will serve only Northwest and its partners while Humphrey will serve everything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Boston could support an international airport other than Logan. Manchester is a great alternative and Providence is most definitivley a Boston Airport (no offense to the people of Providence but I'd bet more than 50% of the passengers are people from the Boston Metro area), but another airport in Weymouth or New Bedford I don't think it is feasible, I think it would be interesting to convert Otis if it does shut down...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I don't think Boston could support an international airport other than Logan. Manchester is a great alternative and Providence is most definitivley a Boston Airport (no offense to the people of Providence but I'd bet more than 50% of the passengers are people from the Boston Metro area), but another airport in Weymouth or New Bedford I don't think it is feasible, I think it would be interesting to convert Otis if it does shut down...

no offense taken... in fact, i think the offense should be taken by bostonians. :P

i know lots of people from boston metro area that would rather fly out of PVD than logan because it's so easy to get in and out of.

i also don't think boston could support another one, especially if PVD gets the expanded runway that they're researching right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.