Jmy007 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 591 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2482 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
Cookies are the Gateway pastry. They lead to Éclairs and Bear Claws.
Russophile From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2471 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.
AirBerlin From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 98 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2468 times:
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2440 times:
Heh.
It would instantaneously justify 50 A380s for every carrier operating.
Mrwayne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2418 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!
Mrniji From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2401 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...
OK, to answer it clearly: no, it makes no sense to go after a strategy of only having one airport (except countries like Luxembourg )
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2384 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
American757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 475 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2361 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.
AirBerlin From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 98 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2333 times:
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2322 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Petazulu From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 701 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2277 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)
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2276 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 23 Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2247 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.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2226 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." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Racko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4838 posts, RR: 21 Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2174 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.
VCE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2148 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
Mrwayne From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2122 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 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
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 591 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
)
From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4838 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
