Metro Orlando Airport News

[bqknight]

Looks like the A321 has an XLR version that can go 4,500 nmi that will enter service soon. JetBlue currently has 13 of those on order, with delivery expected in 2024. 

[HankStrong]

I was curious about what plane they were using and found out something interesting by doing some bookings.

• Select your departing flight
• This route is only served by partner airlines.
• JetBlue flights may be displayed first.

They are selling (as based on the picture on their "Where We Jet" page as a direct flight from MCO to Paris.  It is not.  It is fully pictured as such, though.  

This is either a flight from MCO to one of American Airlines hubs and THEN to Paris or a code-share flight on Icelandair from MCO to Keflavik to Paris. 

It does eventually become a JetBlue flight many months from now, but it is via Boston or NY.  Looks like the info about the planes was more accurate than the JetBlue website

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by HankStrong

[shardoon]

1 hour ago, bqknight said:

Looks like the A321 has an XLR version that can go 4,500 nmi that will enter service soon. JetBlue currently has 13 of those on order, with delivery expected in 2024. 

That may work for the Western European cities from Orlando. Good find!!!

[jrs2]

https://www.trbusiness.com/regional-news/the-americas/goaa-chief-talks-the-orlando-retail-experience-at-mco/232956

write-up on retail at Terminal C and OIA

[shardoon]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

https://www.trbusiness.com/regional-news/the-americas/goaa-chief-talks-the-orlando-retail-experience-at-mco/232956

write-up on retail at Terminal C and OIA

Lots of great info in there. Thanks.

Key points:

1. Projections for 2023 is 55 million......wowzers..... and this is before Epic opens.

2. Phase 1a started construction on the 4 extra gates, not sure if the bridge is included in that or now, but would assume it is. 

3. They are in the process of hiring a new architect for phase 2 for an additional 15 to 20 gates. Not sure why they wouldn't just uses Fentress again due to familiarity. 

4. Terminal A and B are gonna get a revamp with some new concessions and build outs. 

One lingering question...... and you all know my annoyance.......they better have the moving walkways budgeted for phase 1a and in the current phase 1. They also better include the airtrain on phase 2, because it's long as it is, I couldn't imagine no airtrain from the end of phase 2 to the end of phase 1....... moving walkways alone will not cut it on that. You go cheap now, it will only cost more later to fix it.....just saying......

[codypet]

I assume the improvements to A&B are going mostly to Airsides 1 and 3?   They just redid all the ticketing gates, Airside 2 just got a huge revamp and is very very nice, and aside from maybe a new AGT I don't think it really needs anything except maybe more restrooms.  I don't know about Airside 4.  I will say flying Jet Blue just before they moved to Terminal C I was shocked at how bleh Airside 1 was compared to Airside 2.  

[jrs2]

16 hours ago, shardoon said:

Lots of great info in there. Thanks.

Key points:

1. Projections for 2023 is 55 million......wowzers..... and this is before Epic opens.

2. Phase 1a started construction on the 4 extra gates, not sure if the bridge is included in that or now, but would assume it is. 

3. They are in the process of hiring a new architect for phase 2 for an additional 15 to 20 gates. Not sure why they wouldn't just uses Fentress again due to familiarity. 

4. Terminal A and B are gonna get a revamp with some new concessions and build outs. 

One lingering question...... and you all know my annoyance.......they better have the moving walkways budgeted for phase 1a and in the current phase 1. They also better include the airtrain on phase 2, because it's long as it is, I couldn't imagine no airtrain from the end of phase 2 to the end of phase 1....... moving walkways alone will not cut it on that. You go cheap now, it will only cost more later to fix it.....just saying......

and...this is before Brightline opens as well, in that, how many people who want to go to Miami decide instead to fly into Orlando first, do Disney and Universal, then take BL down to Miami?  Or do you think this will be a wash ala people flying into Orlando originally flipping MCO with MIA and doing the inverse?

By "bridge," you mean that direct connect to the Intermodal Center (which down the road may also have a hotel built on top of it (like MCO) or adjacent to it (like Detroit))?

I agree about the moving walkways.  But I'm not the biggest fan of the gate concourse on Terminal C...I prefer ones where there are gates on either side of the concourse; you get more per linear foot.  Either way, you still have to build aprons.

[shardoon]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

and...this is before Brightline opens as well, in that, how many people who want to go to Miami decide instead to fly into Orlando first, do Disney and Universal, then take BL down to Miami?  Or do you think this will be a wash ala people flying into Orlando originally flipping MCO with MIA and doing the inverse?

By "bridge," you mean that direct connect to the Intermodal Center (which down the road may also have a hotel built on top of it (like MCO) or adjacent to it (like Detroit))?

I agree about the moving walkways.  But I'm not the biggest fan of the gate concourse on Terminal C...I prefer ones where there are gates on either side of the concourse; you get more per linear foot.  Either way, you still have to build aprons.

Yea, I was talking about the bridge to the intermodal center. 

I guess the reason they did not have to go having gates on either side of the concourse is that their master plan includes so much land that a mirror image will be build on the East side for a Terminal D. there will still be areas with gates on either side, just not the sections in the North South configuration, only the East West spokes.  As it is, the current buildout has a capacity for 60 million Passengers in a Terminal C and D. Building it for capacity and building the current Terminal C and future D out further to allow planes on either side of the terminal would have probably increased capacity to maybe 80 million passengers. However as it is, a complete buildout of airside 1-4 and a complete Terminal C/D buildout is probably 120 million passengers. Do we really think we are ever going to need that type of capacity? Even if we did, I am sure the next step would be slowly razing and rebuilding the airsides in the North terminal to larger airsides, maybe even connecting them.  Who knows, but we are talking 50 years down the road. 

[codypet]

2 hours ago, shardoon said:

Yea, I was talking about the bridge to the intermodal center. 

I guess the reason they did not have to go having gates on either side of the concourse is that their master plan includes so much land that a mirror image will be build on the East side for a Terminal D. there will still be areas with gates on either side, just not the sections in the North South configuration, only the East West spokes.  As it is, the current buildout has a capacity for 60 million Passengers in a Terminal C and D. Building it for capacity and building the current Terminal C and future D out further to allow planes on either side of the terminal would have probably increased capacity to maybe 80 million passengers. However as it is, a complete buildout of airside 1-4 and a complete Terminal C/D buildout is probably 120 million passengers. Do we really think we are ever going to need that type of capacity? Even if we did, I am sure the next step would be slowly razing and rebuilding the airsides in the North terminal to larger airsides, maybe even connecting them.  Who knows, but we are talking 50 years down the road. 

That plan starts when D is built out, and yes 50 years down the road and by then the existing north terminal will NEED it.

On 4/18/2023 at 9:39 AM, HankStrong said:

I was curious about what plane they were using and found out something interesting by doing some bookings.

• Select your departing flight
• This route is only served by partner airlines.
• JetBlue flights may be displayed first.

They are selling (as based on the picture on their "Where We Jet" page as a direct flight from MCO to Paris.  It is not.  It is fully pictured as such, though.  

This is either a flight from MCO to one of American Airlines hubs and THEN to Paris or a code-share flight on Icelandair from MCO to Keflavik to Paris. 

It does eventually become a JetBlue flight many months from now, but it is via Boston or NY.  Looks like the info about the planes was more accurate than the JetBlue website

 

IMO That's poopy and a bit disingenuous. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by codypet

[blt23]

20 hours ago, shardoon said:

Lots of great info in there. Thanks.

Key points:

1. Projections for 2023 is 55 million......wowzers..... and this is before Epic opens.

2. Phase 1a started construction on the 4 extra gates, not sure if the bridge is included in that or now, but would assume it is. 

3. They are in the process of hiring a new architect for phase 2 for an additional 15 to 20 gates. Not sure why they wouldn't just uses Fentress again due to familiarity. 

4. Terminal A and B are gonna get a revamp with some new concessions and build outs. 

One lingering question...... and you all know my annoyance.......they better have the moving walkways budgeted for phase 1a and in the current phase 1. They also better include the airtrain on phase 2, because it's long as it is, I couldn't imagine no airtrain from the end of phase 2 to the end of phase 1....... moving walkways alone will not cut it on that. You go cheap now, it will only cost more later to fix it.....just saying......

I wouldn't get your hopes up for moving walkways. The going cheap wasn't just about avoiding the cost of the walkways themselves, but also about eliminating the space where they would go and reducing the corridor width, so now there isn't enough space to add them in to the existing building.

I would imagine that the walking distance issue/complaints makes the phase 2 APM nonnegotiable, although that doesn't help arriving international passengers who will still be stuck with really long walks.

[jrs2]

On 4/28/2023 at 12:32 PM, shardoon said:

Yea, I was talking about the bridge to the intermodal center. 

I guess the reason they did not have to go having gates on either side of the concourse is that their master plan includes so much land that a mirror image will be build on the East side for a Terminal D. there will still be areas with gates on either side, just not the sections in the North South configuration, only the East West spokes.  As it is, the current buildout has a capacity for 60 million Passengers in a Terminal C and D. Building it for capacity and building the current Terminal C and future D out further to allow planes on either side of the terminal would have probably increased capacity to maybe 80 million passengers. However as it is, a complete buildout of airside 1-4 and a complete Terminal C/D buildout is probably 120 million passengers. Do we really think we are ever going to need that type of capacity? Even if we did, I am sure the next step would be slowly razing and rebuilding the airsides in the North terminal to larger airsides, maybe even connecting them.  Who knows, but we are talking 50 years down the road. 

question...

you know the whole "if you guild it they will come"?  well, I've noticed how with more gates, that more routes have started to and from MCO.  A few years ago when GOAA announced they were going to expand, Delta protested the "need" for it.  I wonder how much of it was a competition thing as it was a gate fee increase thing.  I mean, Hartsfield will always be a hub, and demand there is directly correlated with their connecting flights.  But I wonder how much of that is based simply on infrastructure investment versus simple geography, which is why Delta was so outspoken a few years back about OIA's expansion. DO they fear MCO's increased "connections" presence in the future that might take future business away from Hartsfield?

[shardoon]

18 hours ago, jrs2 said:

question...

you know the whole "if you guild it they will come"?  well, I've noticed how with more gates, that more routes have started to and from MCO.  A few years ago when GOAA announced they were going to expand, Delta protested the "need" for it.  I wonder how much of it was a competition thing as it was a gate fee increase thing.  I mean, Hartsfield will always be a hub, and demand there is directly correlated with their connecting flights.  But I wonder how much of that is based simply on infrastructure investment versus simple geography, which is why Delta was so outspoken a few years back about OIA's expansion. DO they fear MCO's increased "connections" presence in the future that might take future business away from Hartsfield?

I think that is part of it and the other part is that they simply are cheap. They already scaled back their mini hub status from Orlando back in the day. They were content in their airside, the one with the larger of the initial 2 international customs facilities. It really didn't benefit them. 

However, what this did allow was for Jet Blue to spread its wings to expand, and I really do feel they are moving toward traditional hub status. As others have pointed out, their orders for some new extended range narrow body airbus may even open the door to Western Europe jet blue expansion from MCO. 

Terminal C also allowed there to be room in the North terminal for breeze airways, avelo airlines, and frontier to expand.  Without terminal C, there is no way we break the projection of 55 million passengers that is projected this year. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by shardoon

[jrs2]

6 hours ago, shardoon said:

I think that is part of it and the other part is that they simply are cheap. They already scaled back their mini hub status from Orlando back in the day. They were content in their airside, the one with the larger of the initial 2 international customs facilities. It really didn't benefit them. 

However, what this did allow was for Jet Blue to spread its wings to expand, and I really do feel they are moving toward traditional hub status. As others have pointed out, their orders for some new extended range narrow body airbus may even open the door to Western Europe jet blue expansion from MCO. 

Terminal C also allowed there to be room in the North terminal for breeze airways, avelo airlines, and frontier to expand.  Without terminal C, there is no way we break the projection of 55 million passengers that is projected this year. 

why do you think they never "finished" Airside 2 with three concourses instead of two?  That's good for 10-12 gates just there alone.  I mean, the airside is already there; all they need to do is to build out the third concourse and buy some jetways...right?  Southwest is heavily in Airside 2...

On 4/28/2023 at 3:48 PM, blt23 said:

I wouldn't get your hopes up for moving walkways. The going cheap wasn't just about avoiding the cost of the walkways themselves, but also about eliminating the space where they would go and reducing the corridor width, so now there isn't enough space to add them in to the existing building.

I would imagine that the walking distance issue/complaints makes the phase 2 APM nonnegotiable, although that doesn't help arriving international passengers who will still be stuck with really long walks.

this reminds me of what they did at O'Hare and DFW...with an APM shadowing their buildings (landsides and/or airsides) with intermittent  exists- built after the fact.  how do they screw that up?

[codypet]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

why do you think they never "finished" Airside 2 with three concourses instead of two?  That's good for 10-12 gates just there alone.  I mean, the airside is already there; all they need to do is to build out the third concourse and buy some jetways...right?  Southwest is heavily in Airside 2...

The original intent of Airside 4 was to have a mini tower to locally control the planes until the main tower (which was way shorter at the time could clear them).   When the built the new tower and runway and then later built out Airside 2 they built it out with the amount of gates they wanted to without the 3rd leg, and if they had built the 3rd leg, they'd lose visual to the planes from the tower.   My understanding is when the new tower was built, they abandoned  that mini tower in Airside 4 to simplify logistics and didn't want to go back to using them.  The result is they're not intending to ever add that 3rd leg.

[shardoon]

More information on the extra long range narrow body that jet blue will be getting. Western Europe will be in range for MCO for jet blue. 

https://simpleflying.com/airbus-a321xlr-integrated-rear-center-tank-guide/?newsletter_popup=1

[HankStrong]

That's a great read.

[jrs2]

22 hours ago, codypet said:

The original intent of Airside 4 was to have a mini tower to locally control the planes until the main tower (which was way shorter at the time could clear them).   When the built the new tower and runway and then later built out Airside 2 they built it out with the amount of gates they wanted to without the 3rd leg, and if they had built the 3rd leg, they'd lose visual to the planes from the tower.   My understanding is when the new tower was built, they abandoned  that mini tower in Airside 4 to simplify logistics and didn't want to go back to using them.  The result is they're not intending to ever add that 3rd leg.

I just thought it was funny how OIA would market the "garden" feature of Airside 2, when, the entire property of MCO is in fact a lush tropical setting (compared to say DFW and O'Hare).  So it's like...who cares about a garden in that respect?

since the FAA Tower is like 350', you would think that now, with that height, they could finish it.  I wonder if they are viewing it like an F-15 as compared to an F-35, in that, they want to focus all their big $$$ on the South Terminal Complex instead.

IMO, being that they already opened up Terminal C Phase 1A, they need to focus on Phase B, the Connector, perhaps a hotel there (which of course they are currently doing).  Maybe they think that the infrastructure in the North Terminal Complex isn't big enough to handle the air traffic that passes through there daily...  Not sure about that, because if you see a map of O'Hare and see how much traffic goes through the AA section of the terminal and how they Scotch-taped new gates on those existing buildings' edges, it's almost comical.  It's like O'Hare has it's own FAA sub-rules.

If you look at Hartsfield, their landside terminal isn't big at all, but I think the difference there is most of those passengers only connect and never even see the landside terminal (it's not that big of an O&D operation)... So...maybe OIA Northside Terminal is too small after all...  

[shardoon]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

I just thought it was funny how OIA would market the "garden" feature of Airside 2, when, the entire property of MCO is in fact a lush tropical setting (compared to say DFW and O'Hare).  So it's like...who cares about a garden in that respect?

since the FAA Tower is like 350', you would think that now, with that height, they could finish it.  I wonder if they are viewing it like an F-15 as compared to an F-35, in that, they want to focus all their big $$$ on the South Terminal Complex instead.

IMO, being that they already opened up Terminal C Phase 1A, they need to focus on Phase B, the Connector, perhaps a hotel there (which of course they are currently doing).  Maybe they think that the infrastructure in the North Terminal Complex isn't big enough to handle the air traffic that passes through there daily...  Not sure about that, because if you see a map of O'Hare and see how much traffic goes through the AA section of the terminal and how they Scotch-taped new gates on those existing buildings' edges, it's almost comical.  It's like O'Hare has it's own FAA sub-rules.

If you look at Hartsfield, their landside terminal isn't big at all, but I think the difference there is most of those passengers only connect and never even see the landside terminal (it's not that big of an O&D operation)... So...maybe OIA Northside Terminal is too small after all...  

I am fine with them devoting all their money and attention on expansion of the South terminal. What is the point of expanding an airside, when you can add the same amount of gates to the South terminal at roughly the same cost?  The north terminal's days are numbered and eventually the airsides will be rebuilt 50 years down the road when terminal C and future D is completely built out. 

[codypet]

2 hours ago, jrs2 said:

I just thought it was funny how OIA would market the "garden" feature of Airside 2, when, the entire property of MCO is in fact a lush tropical setting (compared to say DFW and O'Hare).  So it's like...who cares about a garden in that respect?

since the FAA Tower is like 350', you would think that now, with that height, they could finish it.  I wonder if they are viewing it like an F-15 as compared to an F-35, in that, they want to focus all their big $$$ on the South Terminal Complex instead.

IMO, being that they already opened up Terminal C Phase 1A, they need to focus on Phase B, the Connector, perhaps a hotel there (which of course they are currently doing).  Maybe they think that the infrastructure in the North Terminal Complex isn't big enough to handle the air traffic that passes through there daily...  Not sure about that, because if you see a map of O'Hare and see how much traffic goes through the AA section of the terminal and how they Scotch-taped new gates on those existing buildings' edges, it's almost comical.  It's like O'Hare has it's own FAA sub-rules.

If you look at Hartsfield, their landside terminal isn't big at all, but I think the difference there is most of those passengers only connect and never even see the landside terminal (it's not that big of an O&D operation)... So...maybe OIA Northside Terminal is too small after all...  

My understanding with my discussion with operations is that its the NEW tower that doesn't have a line of sight to Airside 2, and the old tower didn't have a line of sight to (planned at the time) Airside 2 OR Airside 4 hence the need for the ramp tower.  When the new tower went up, the ramp tower was abandoned.  Personally, I don't understand how your view isn't obstructed to the 3rd leg Airside 1 now if its supposedly obstructed on the 3rd leg of Airside 2.  Or even how the whole south terminal isn't obstructed from the tower with that same logic applied.  I honestly wouldn't know for sure without going up there myself.

[jrs2]

4 hours ago, codypet said:

My understanding with my discussion with operations is that its the NEW tower that doesn't have a line of sight to Airside 2, and the old tower didn't have a line of sight to (planned at the time) Airside 2 OR Airside 4 hence the need for the ramp tower.  When the new tower went up, the ramp tower was abandoned.  Personally, I don't understand how your view isn't obstructed to the 3rd leg Airside 1 now if its supposedly obstructed on the 3rd leg of Airside 2.  Or even how the whole south terminal isn't obstructed from the tower with that same logic applied.  I honestly wouldn't know for sure without going up there myself.

exactly.

Airside 2 has like 22 gates, so it's substantial...  From what we've seen over the years, I think the problem is with the landside terminal and the TSA chokepoints (I mean checkpoints). I have to say that they did a pretty decent job on the Airside 1 & 3 TSA redo; they made it like three times the size; it's huge.  I actually think it's more voluminous now that the Airside 2 & 4 side below the Hyatt. @shardoonis right regarding the devoting of future monies...because we have a new Landside Terminal for the first time since the 1980's and expansion to accommodate Hyatt & Airside4 around 1990.  That is a very long time for an O&D-heavy airport that is very large.  So I guess those eggs got to go into the Terminal C basket for now...

Also, if you go to O'Hare, both their arrivals and departures levels outside have multiple (I mean multiple) loops and lanes, more than double what's at OIA.  That's a problem too for congestion.  And right now at Terminal C, the arrivals lanes outside are just the skeletal framework of what will eventually be expanded (greatly, I presume).  But back at A&B, it's just not set up that way- however, maybe some of those lanes you see at O-Hare are here, except that they're underneath on the busses/taxis level.  So maybe we do have enough roadway/driveup infrastructure.  It's just that I personally never go there; it's always the departures level.

[shardoon]

14 hours ago, jrs2 said:

exactly.

Airside 2 has like 22 gates, so it's substantial...  From what we've seen over the years, I think the problem is with the landside terminal and the TSA chokepoints (I mean checkpoints). I have to say that they did a pretty decent job on the Airside 1 & 3 TSA redo; they made it like three times the size; it's huge.  I actually think it's more voluminous now that the Airside 2 & 4 side below the Hyatt. @shardoonis right regarding the devoting of future monies...because we have a new Landside Terminal for the first time since the 1980's and expansion to accommodate Hyatt & Airside4 around 1990.  That is a very long time for an O&D-heavy airport that is very large.  So I guess those eggs got to go into the Terminal C basket for now...

Also, if you go to O'Hare, both their arrivals and departures levels outside have multiple (I mean multiple) loops and lanes, more than double what's at OIA.  That's a problem too for congestion.  And right now at Terminal C, the arrivals lanes outside are just the skeletal framework of what will eventually be expanded (greatly, I presume).  But back at A&B, it's just not set up that way- however, maybe some of those lanes you see at O-Hare are here, except that they're underneath on the busses/taxis level.  So maybe we do have enough roadway/driveup infrastructure.  It's just that I personally never go there; it's always the departures level.

Don't get me wrong, if Southwest wants to personally contribute to their exclusive airside expansion, I'm all for it lol. 

Maybe line of sight is outdated these days for ground control. I think with plane GPS trackers, a high tech camera system and AI........ you can really have a very accurate map and control of all the planes on the ground, even the few you may not have a direct view of. The key is that they have lines of sight of all the runways, which I'm sure they do........ but even the usefulness of that may be overblown. But hey, I'm not a air/ground controller so what do I know?

[shardoon]

Rolling 12 months passengers numbers released through March 2023. We are at 52,766,112. This formally crossed the threshold as being the busiest ever. Shattered through precovid numbers. Added close to another 750,000 with the new March numbers. I do feel we will in fact approach 55 million or even break it by the end of the year and maybe retake the thrown from Miami as Florida's busiest airport. It's also that much more special because Orlando is mainly and O&D airport. Miami is a major AA hub and many get counted double while never leaving the sterile gate area since they are just transferring flights to make a connection. If a family of 4 have a connection to the Caribbean through Miami for a round trip flight, they will count as 16 for passenger counts after their vacation is done while using Miami as a connection. This is also why Atlanta has bloated numbers.

[jrs2]

6 hours ago, shardoon said:

Rolling 12 months passengers numbers released through March 2023. We are at 52,766,112. This formally crossed the threshold as being the busiest ever. Shattered through precovid numbers. Added close to another 750,000 with the new March numbers. I do feel we will in fact approach 55 million or even break it by the end of the year and maybe retake the thrown from Miami as Florida's busiest airport. It's also that much more special because Orlando is mainly and O&D airport. Miami is a major AA hub and many get counted double while never leaving the sterile gate area since they are just transferring flights to make a connection. If a family of 4 have a connection to the Caribbean through Miami for a round trip flight, they will count as 16 for passenger counts after their vacation is done while using Miami as a connection. This is also why Atlanta has bloated numbers.

that is utterly ridiculous. Then DFW, O'Hare, and Hartsfield aren't as busy as they say they are, and haven't been all these years.

[shardoon]

45 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

that is utterly ridiculous. Then DFW, O'Hare, and Hartsfield aren't as busy as they say they are, and haven't been all these years.

I mean, maybe their sterile areas are busy, but the rest of the airport infrastructure such as baggage claims, ticketing areas, and TSA checkpoints are probably much less than a place like Orlando or Las Vegas. For Atlanta being the busiest airport in the world, O&D, I would guess maybe less than 30 million a year.

Just messing around with their data, about 75% of ALL atlanta passengers are Delta. Majority of that are connections. Let's subtract 5% for actual delta O&D, but I'll add it back for all the international codeshares that are run as connections. 

2022 Atlanta had 93 million passengers. 25% O&D and 75% connections. That's really only about 23.25 million passengers going through ticketing and security for the entire year. About 70 million are just people as connections. Half of those are counted twice. 

So real atlanta stats are 23.25 million O&D and another extra 35 million bodies in the sterile gate areas. Not that far off from how busy Orlando is currently. 

https://www.atl.com/business-information/statistics/

Edited May 5, 2023 by shardoon

[aent]

7 hours ago, jrs2 said:

that is utterly ridiculous. Then DFW, O'Hare, and Hartsfield aren't as busy as they say they are, and haven't been all these years.

I'm honestly surprised that is news to anyone, why else would Atlanta make sense to be the busiest airport, by far, not even close? I don't think Atlanta is on the top of anyone's top destination desires....

Edited May 6, 2023 by aent