Sammyhostie
Topic Author
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:53 am

Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:10 am

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

To what extent would this affect the industry?
 
jmy007
Posts: 540
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 2:18 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Airport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:16 am

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.
 
Russophile
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 9:22 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:17 am

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
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:58 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:18 am

That makes absolutly no sence whatsoever...

AL
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17085
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:20 am

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." - John Ringo
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:21 am

Heh.

It would instantaneously justify 50 A380s for every carrier operating.

N
 
mrwayne
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:15 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:24 am

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!
 
mrwayne
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:15 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:26 am

The only airport in the UK to serve the A380 will be LHR! Obviously.
 
mrniji
Posts: 5382
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:51 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:27 am

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 )
"The earth provides enough resources for everyone's need, but not for some people's greed." (Gandhi)
 
BNA
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:05 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:27 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17085
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:29 am

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." - John Ringo
 
mrwayne
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:15 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Airport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:29 am

Yes... and Luxembourg only serves the fat cat bureaucrats who work at the European Commission!
 
AMERICAN757
Posts: 440
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:31 am

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.
 
mrwayne
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:15 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:33 am

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.
 
AirBerlin
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 9:58 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:36 am



AL
 
mrwayne
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:15 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:37 am

AirBerlin.....


Is he a shrink?

You need help....
 
User avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17085
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:38 am

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." - John Ringo
 
mrwayne
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:15 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:39 am

Yeah,

But where can you actually go from there?

LGW? EDI? Or how about DUB? Or Greenland...thats the last stop before Siberia...
 
petazulu
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 31, 2003 3:32 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:46 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17085
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:47 am

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." - John Ringo
 
ssides
Posts: 3248
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2001 12:57 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:51 am

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17085
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 2:55 am

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." - John Ringo
 
racko
Posts: 4548
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 12:06 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arp

Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:04 am

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
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 8:31 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:11 am

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
Posts: 157
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:15 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:15 am

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?
 
nwa man
Posts: 1752
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 1999 3:24 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:30 am

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?



Well in principle it would work, but business travelers (and even some leisure travelers) demand frequency. One 747 per day will serve the number of people on the route, but it would probably piss more people off than it would help. This is why you're beginning to see more regional jets on more and more routes - passengers have decided that route frequency and convenience are more important than comfort, which is prudent but unfortunate. I'd much rather see 5 DC-9s on a route than 7 RJs, and I'd rather connect in Detroit or Memphis and get upgraded than fly a CRJ between MSP and JAX, for example.


As for the "one international airport" issue...

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.

There was no need for the "JK" there. It's a logistical nightmare, a sabotage of business, and just simply an awful idea.


N-Dub
Create your own luck.
 
ckfred
Posts: 4714
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:42 am

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, and Latin America. The domestic carriers funneled passengers to Pan Am's hubs.

When the domestic carriers started getting routes from their hubs (even though Pan Am also sought authority from places like ATL, DFW, and MSP), that spelled the end of Pan Am's domination of international service.
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Air

Thu Mar 04, 2004 7:30 am

I'm just wondering if there is a non-international airport in Germany at all. Actually I do not think so.

SailorOrion
 
tavve
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:24 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:08 am

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.net SammyHostie! This is indeed a brutal world.
GOT, that's where I live
 
ual747den
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:29 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:12 am

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 needless trash. Hey and what the hell is an Arport?
/// UNITED AIRLINES
 
sw733
Posts: 5302
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:22 am

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 heat! Also, bye bye to Qantas, Air China, etc. who make their LAX to Asia/Oceania flights because they cant make it to JFK. FUN FUN FUN  Wink/being sarcastic. All I know is I've only flown once out of JFK and I'd hate it to be the only airport in America to get around the world from
 
FLYtoEGCC
Posts: 929
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:56 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:28 am

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 you tonight has been insulting and rather childish. You profile lists you as 21-25, can we see some evidence of this in your posts please? I don't see how your post here contributes in any useful way to this thread.
Come fly with me, let's fly, let's fly away...
 
757KSLC
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:52 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 8:34 am

Someone explain the difference between an "Intercontinental" airport, and in "International" airport. If an airport was "Intercontinental", wouldn't it therefore be "International"? (IAH for example) Australia is the only country that is also its own continent.
 
JumboBumbo
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2003 1:17 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:07 am

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 France, throughout Europe that have international flights (some of them even on RJs) to other continental Europe destinations. Whereas intercontinental airports would imply a jump to another continent such as North America, Africa, Asia, etc.

People are forgetting flights between the US and Australia. Seriously, someone in LA is going to go LAX-JFK-LAX-SYD and on the way back SYD-LAX-JFK-LAX without being able to disembark at LAX. Or worse yet if ALL international flights could ONLY leave through JFK then cease US-AUS operations... why don't you ask the folks at Qantas what they think of that?


 
prebennorholm
Posts: 6418
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 9:10 am

Denmark is 218 times smaller than the USA. We have five international airports with year around scheduled service, Aalborg, Aarhus, Billund, Copenhagen and Esbjerg. And we need every one of them.

When we count international seasonal charter and summer-only scheduled we have two or three more.

If we count all airstrips where international general aviation traffic can be processed, then I have no idea about the number.

How many major cities can survive with one international airport only? As far as I know London, UK has five. Just imagine if they were combined to one, what a nightmare.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
COSPN
Posts: 1535
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:15 pm

In Think IAH Bush intercontinental was w way to seak in the the name of Its main operator Continental Airlines...What do you think..
 
jhooper
Posts: 5560
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:26 pm

Yea, I must agree. There's absolutely no rationale for restricting countries to one major international airport. It makes zero sense.
Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
 
SailorOrion
Posts: 1959
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2001 5:56 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 4:04 pm

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 "intercontinental" airport, except when you name it.

SailorOrion
 
aussie747
Posts: 1005
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 11:15 pm

RE: Should Countries Only Have 1 International Arport?

Thu Mar 04, 2004 7:12 pm

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 million people are over 4000 km apart. I for one would not want to say fly PER-SYD-SIN when a PER-SIN flight is little more than the flight from PER-SYD (that is one example) and I am sure wih counties such as the USA (specifically) Canada, Japan, and UK (just to name a few - could well agree with my sentiments)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a300, AC853, alomar, B757Forever, Bing [Bot], cvgComair, Gemuser, Google Adsense [Bot], hkcanadaexpat, jetwet1, knope2001, lhpdx, msycajun, mtnwest1979, NichCage, PITflier, Raventech, rhuns, timberwolf24 and 271 guests