Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?  
User currently offlineSammyhostie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

Should countries only have 1 major international airport, and "satellite regionals" instead of the present situation?

To what extent would this affect the industry?

38 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJmy007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 598 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3023 times:

I not sure where you are coming from on this question. But having 1 intl. airport per country would be economic and logistic nightmare.

Could you imagine, if say for the US, if JFK is the only international airport? Thousands of people converging in one area, to take only a certain number of flights, who wants to connect through there like that? yikes  Wow!



Cookies are the Gateway pastry. They lead to Éclairs and Bear Claws.
User currently offlineRussophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3012 times:

There would be 1.5 million very pissed off residents of Perth who would have to make a 4000km trip east to enable them to make their annual pilgrimage to Bali. Imagine also wanting to travel to South Africa -- instead of getting a current flight on SAA non-stop, you would then have to make a 4 hour trip to Sydney, and then a 4 hour backtrack.

And if you think that might be bad, imagine what it would be like if you wanted to jump on a flight from Vladivostok to Seoul -- instead of a short duration flight, it would turn into a one day saga with the cross country flight to Moscow and back.

Such a plan would totally kill the industry -- unless of course it was Sydney that lost its international status whilst PER kept it -- now that is something I could handle.


User currently offlineAirBerlin From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3009 times:

That makes absolutly no sence whatsoever...

AL


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17072 posts, RR: 66
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

Absolutely not. This would only work in tiny countries geographically.

For the UK or even Sweden, having one international airport would only increase prices for the travelling public.

The market will find the right number of airports eventually.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

Heh.

It would instantaneously justify 50 A380s for every carrier operating.

N


User currently offlineMrwayne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2959 times:

Starlionblue,

You can only travel from/to certain destinations from most aiprorts, you go into a regional "hub" in order to connect to other destinations. (like on the american carriers) however at LHR you can go basically anywhere, thats why BA offer free internal flights to LGW /LHR so they can connectfor their main flights!


User currently offlineMrwayne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2941 times:

The only airport in the UK to serve the A380 will be LHR! Obviously.

User currently offlineMrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

It depends on the size. many countries are just to big and heterodox in their composition... take India as an example: If it only had BOM with an international airport, the capital wouldn't be linked. The South would be neglected, and economic progress hampered.
Similar in the US
Germany (and France) for instance is different. I personally don't see any sense in creating MUC as another hub, maybe only to ease FRA. But I know, my argument here is weak, open for every critisicm... it is just more convenient and does influence economic development...  Wink/being sarcastic

OK, to answer it clearly: no, it makes no sense to go after a strategy of only having one airport (except countries like Luxembourg  Smile/happy/getting dizzy )


User currently offlineBNA From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2930 times:

Let's see....Only one airport in the entire USA will be the international airport....

After much consideration, I have concluded this is a ridiculously bad idea.



User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17072 posts, RR: 66
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

Mrwayne said:
You can only travel from/to certain destinations from most aiprorts, you go into a regional "hub" in order to connect to other destinations. (like on the american carriers) however at LHR you can go basically anywhere, thats why BA offer free internal flights to LGW /LHR so they can connectfor their main flights!


So? If it's cheaper to fly from MAN or FRA or CDG, I will connect from there, even starting from LHR. This illustrates my point about the increased costs with only one international airport in most countries. BTW, going to Cape Town, or the US is often cheaper via AMS or MAD or FRA or CDG. Going to Dubai is often cheaper via MXP.





"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMrwayne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2921 times:

Yes... and Luxembourg only serves the fat cat bureaucrats who work at the European Commission!

User currently offlineAmerican757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 475 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

thats just a stupid idea, i mean seriously just dumb, i mean if you put all the international activity into one airport that would just be insane!!! Absolutly scary idea, i cant beleive anybody even asked this question!!! Ok jk jk jk, but it is a dumb idea, would never work out.

User currently offlineMrwayne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

Ok for the American market, maybe one in the north and one in the south.

And also one in Florida! So we can get to Disneyworld.


User currently offlineAirBerlin From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 98 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2874 times:



AL


User currently offlineMrwayne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2867 times:

AirBerlin.....


Is he a shrink?

You need help....


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17072 posts, RR: 66
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

If Sweden, a country with only 9 million inhabitants, has more than 10 international airports, it seems pretty obvious that most countries need more than one.

For the record:
Stockholm Arlanda
Stockholm Bromma
Stockholm Skavsta
Stockholm Västerås
Göteborg City
Göteborg Landvetter
Malmö Skurup
Sundsvall
Umeå
Jönköping
...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineMrwayne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2854 times:

Yeah,

But where can you actually go from there?

LGW? EDI? Or how about DUB? Or Greenland...thats the last stop before Siberia...


User currently offlinePetazulu From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

So what if you can only go to London from those places. That's where people want to go! Your idea reminds me of how the centralized French government decided that all train lines begin and end in Paris. It's slowly changing- but it is such a pain in the ass.

Anyways, poorly reasoned idea, even for small countrys (Luxembourg not included)


User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17072 posts, RR: 66
Reply 19, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2817 times:

does it matter? the point is that may be cheaper to fly Göteborg->Grand Canaria than to connect through Arlanda. Also, Ryanair goes to Skavsta and Västerås instead of Arlanda, thereby saving me money on the ticket.

So how exactly is 1 airport better?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

OK, so I want to go from DFW to MUC. I have to fly to JFK, then to FRA, then to MUC?

This would be back to the bad old days pre-deregulation, when many trips had to be completed on multiple airlines. I can't believe this has generated so much discussion.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17072 posts, RR: 66
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

Ssides, if it costs me £350 to go LHR-Cape Town with SAA or British direct, and £250 with KLM via AMS, obviously I will go with KLM unless my company pays OR I have money to burn OR if time is of the essence.

But your point is extremely valid. The point is that we should have a choice. And a choice means more than one option.

I can't believe I'm still responding to this thread. It's plain stupid. I'm done.

[Edited 2004-03-03 18:56:47]


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4857 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

Monocentric countries usually only have only 1 major airport or rather 1 airport system (e.g. France, the UK), simply because most of the travel originates there.

Polycentric countries like the US (or as a smaller example, Germany) usually have more major airports in different cities because the destinations are spread more around the country.


User currently offlineVCE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

I totally agree with Racko. Italy is for example a country with the UK and France with 60 millions of inhabitants, and a distance from the north to the south of almost 2000km. Do you think it will be possible to have one international airport?

In Italy there are 3 intercontinental airports:
MXP
FCO
VCE

and International airports:
Turin
Milan MXP
Milan LIN
Milan BGY
Genoa
Bologna
Verona
Venice Marco Polo
Venice Treviso
Trieste
Rimini
Ancona
Florence
Pisa
Pescara
Rome FCO
Rome CIA
Naples
Bari
Lamezia Terme

* Sardinia:
Cagliari
Olbia
Alghero

* Sicily:
Palermo
Catania
Lampedusa Archipelago
Pantelleria


User currently offlineMrwayne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 8 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2663 times:

Why have a BA flight every half hour from LHR in a 73/A319 from LHR to MAN, EDI, GLA etc etc when they could put a 74 on the route and half the flights?!

Any ideas guys? Would it work? What do you think?


25 NWA Man : Why have a BA flight every half hour from LHR in a 73/A319 from LHR to MAN, EDI, GLA etc etc when they could put a 74 on the route and half the flight
26 Ckfred : This is one of the reasons why Pan Am went under. Pan Am's route system was designed to take passengers from the East and West Coasts to Europe, Asia,
27 SailorOrion : I'm just wondering if there is a non-international airport in Germany at all. Actually I do not think so. SailorOrion
28 Tavve : That would be like saying that everyone who wants to leave New York state, wherever they are, have to do it via time square. By the way: Welcome to a.
29 Ual747den : SammyHostie Every post from you has been garbage! OF COURSE NOT! You are on the same level as LHR001 for me and that is bad. Please stop posting this
30 Post contains images SW733 : Yep, waiting for 24 hours to get through customs at JFK because that's the only airport allowing travel into the US would be a blast in the summer hea
31 FLYtoEGCC : Sammyhostie What would be the point? For example, in the UK, what's wrong with the system we have presently? Ual747den And every post I've read from y
32 757KSLC : Someone explain the difference between an "Intercontinental" airport, and in "International" airport. If an airport was "Intercontinental", wouldn't i
33 JumboBumbo : 757KSLC- I think what the poster (from Italy) was saying is that there are numerous flights from smaller airports in countries like Italy, Spain and F
34 Prebennorholm : Denmark is 218 times smaller than the USA. We have five international airports with year around scheduled service, Aalborg, Aarhus, Billund, Copenhage
35 Cospn : In Think IAH Bush intercontinental was w way to seak in the the name of Its main operator Continental Airlines...What do you think..
36 Jhooper : Yea, I must agree. There's absolutely no rationale for restricting countries to one major international airport. It makes zero sense.
37 SailorOrion : An international airport is an airport which can be used as point-of-entry. In other words, a customs office must exist. There is no such thing as a "
38 Aussie747 : what a pathetic question is that. Although Australia may only have a snippet of over 20 million people some capital cities each with at least 1.5 mill
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Which US Airlines Have International Hubs Where? posted Thu May 27 2004 16:59:18 by 777kicksass
Airlines That Only Fly International posted Mon May 17 2004 03:40:13 by AGrayson514
Do Any US Airports Only Have Mainline Service? posted Sun May 16 2004 19:07:51 by Nycfuturepilot
Should AA - TWA Have Merged? posted Wed Aug 14 2002 02:09:00 by United777
Should Americans Only Fly US Carriers? posted Wed Jun 26 2002 02:57:15 by Dr.DTW
Should Benelux Air Have A Change? posted Wed Apr 3 2002 11:37:01 by Sabena 690
Should Aircraft Lavs Have Windows? posted Fri Nov 2 2001 23:17:21 by Johnnie
AA And UA May Only Have Limited Liability posted Fri Sep 14 2001 05:43:06 by Bigo747
Should Ansett Operate More International Flights? posted Tue Aug 22 2000 00:56:11 by Qf747
Is FRA The Only Apt To Have A Blue Film Theatre? posted Tue Sep 26 2006 17:41:26 by Vimanav