Flying_727 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 428 posts, RR: 5 Posted (13 years 7 months 5 hours ago) and read 514 times:
Today i found out that ATL is leading ORD in the race for the largest. I am disapointed being that ORD is my home airport. My Question Is what do you think about the busiest airport. Which do you think is better or you would like to see win in the race.
Boeing727 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 935 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (13 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 423 times:
Well, since the third placed airport is so far behind I will put in my few words on these airports. I have been to both of them many times and I do fly Delta 9 out of 10 times, therefore ATL is most of the time an automatic (unless I have to go through CVG). I find my time @ ATL more hectic and not as eventful as in ORD; less exciting flying objects to look @. It is to no surprise that ATL has reached the # 1 spot, but I rather see ORD keeping the #1 slot. It is a more fascinating airport to fly into, especially as a private pilot, than ATL and that is my opinion. By the way, might as well see as much as possible of ORD, because there is only one way to heaven and that is through..., yes you guessed it,... Atlanta. (little joke on the side for all you Delta fans).
William From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (13 years 7 months 2 hours ago) and read 426 times:
I think you mean to state the world's busiest airport. The answer is really only half right. ORD still handles more operations,the visible part,than ATL. However ATL handles more passengers.
Now that I have confused you,I believe the airports need to be more concerned with ontime operations instead of operations just to reach a title. If an airport gets a reputation for late flights,passengers will try to avoid it (Newark).
I do believe that ORD is in a better positition to handle growth by virture of its runway layout,which at first looks like a game of "pickup sticks",yet the bizarre layout is operationally efficient.
ATL on the other hand is nearing its operations limit,with really no room to grow to meet expected demand. ATL is up against a brick wall,and building ONE regional runway will not solve its problems.
Stlbham From United States of America, joined May 1999, 443 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 413 times:
I have a question, and all I need is a guess for an answer. The reason I am asking this is one of the news people here said that there were 1 billion (yes that is billion with a "B" ) passengers going through LAX for the three day holiday period. Well it happens that this news lady lives two doors down from me and I wanted to tell her wrong so I was wanting to know if someone out there could get me a guess that is much closer to right number than 1 billion. The right answer is maybe a million but surely not a billion i dont even think that airport gets that many in a year.
Gnomon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 410 times:
Atlanta, interestingly enough, is also the largest airport in terms of floor space...and I must argue that the airport layout minimizes walking distance between any two flights in a completely ingenious way. In addition, the operational efficiency enabled by the system of parallel runways is very high - but only within the scope of ATL's original master plan and not beyond that in terms of traffic expansion. Alas, ATL has expanded considerably, but still, as Boeing_727 eloquently put it, the only way to get to heaven, if you live in the South, is through Atlanta, where everything is Delta. C'est la vie!
William From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 398 times:
Simply put,ATL would be hard pressed to add a significant number of flights. Though Delta,at last count has some 652 departures a day,it is even concerned with the maxed operation. There is no breathing room,if a thunderstorm blew through and stacked aircraft in the sky,ATL could not retrieve aircraft as fast as DFW (can land four at a time) or Ohare (which could do the same). So a storm delaying operations in the morning would ripple throughout the day.
Building new terminals (new international terminal) is nice,but does not help on the operations side.
Gnomon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (13 years 6 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 380 times:
Someone said earlier that ORD's system of intersecting runways is highly efficient from an operational standpoint. With the scrutiny currently given to land-and-hold-short operations, and pilots' increasingly popular reluctance to operate under those standards, I sure wish someone could tell us how the heck such a random network of intersecting runways is more efficient than those at ATL or LAX. Seems to me that a great deal of efficiency would be lost simply because of departing aircraft having to hold in position for arrivals on intersecting runways that can't hold short because of weight and stopping distance considerations. Additionally, my experience flying into ORD is that at least one runway is usually closed at peak times to facilitate arrivals' speedy clearance of their arrival runway. For example, 22R arrivals often back-taxi down 27R/09L to the east to join taxiway Lima(?), which takes them right past the International Concourse to the Delta and American terminals. How is closing a runway for taxiing purposes operationally efficient? I'm not seeing it...clue me in.