User avatar
Zoedyn
Topic Author
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:46 pm

Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:31 am

There are quite a few cities and metropolitan areas in the world that have multiple airports built to accommodate mounting pax traffic.

The map below shows the nine of them that managed to handle a total pax volume in excess of 100 million via a multi-airport system (with the major airports indicated in red) in 2017 per wiki.

In contrast, ATL in the city of Atlanta is currently the world's only airport that has handled over 100 million pax per year. Moreover, according to agreements btwn Delta and the Atlanta City Council in 2016, the city of Atlanta promised not to build a second commercial airport during the next 20 years.

So, what do you make of a multi-airport system, esp vis-à-vis a single-airport system like ATL? For multi-airport systems, what sorts of scenario work best in the interest of passengers, airlines, and a metropolitan area respectively? One airport for LCCs, the other for legacy carriers? Or one mainly for international routes, others for domestic routes? Or let the airports be a mixer of all types of carriers and routes vying for a leading position in a laissez-faire manner? What're yr thoughts?

Image
 
Andy33
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:42 am

Just to inform the discussion, there are officially 6 London airports, not 5. SEN (Southend) is also recognised by the UK CAA and by IATA as a London airport, and flights to/from there appear if you search GDSs using the city code LON.

Isn't something similar the case for New York and Los Angeles, where there are more airports in the city group than you list? Certainly in the case of New York, SWF is even owned and operated by the same authority as EWR/JFK/LGA. Probably best if the airports are correctly defined before we start.
 
c933103
Posts: 3822
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:40 am

You also have like FTY near ATL
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
LupineChemist
Posts: 801
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:03 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:07 am

The Bangkok system of LCCs to DMK and Legacies to BKK works pretty well. But main is it a pain to make the transfer between them, even with the free bus because of Bangkok traffic.

They really need to finish the BTS line that will end up at DMK
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:09 am

Some more examples of multi-airport cities:

Moscow (Sheremetyevo, Domodedovo, Vnukovo and Zhukovsky)
Milan (Malpensa, Linate and Bergamo)
Istanbul (Ataturk and Sabiha Gokcen)
Bangkok (Suvarnabhumi and Don Mueang)
Rome (Fiumicino and Ciampino)
Berlin (Tegel and Schönefeld)
Washington DC (Dulles, Ronals Reagan and Baltimore-Washington)

And I'm sure there are plenty more examples.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:24 am

LupineChemist wrote:
The Bangkok system of LCCs to DMK and Legacies to BKK works pretty well. But main is it a pain to make the transfer between them, even with the free bus because of Bangkok traffic.

They really need to finish the BTS line that will end up at DMK


I agree splitting legacy carriers and LCCs is a good idea, these passengers most likely won't interact so they don't need to be at the same airport. Passengers arriving on a legacy airline will connect to a legacy airline and passengers arriving at a LCC will connect to a LCC.

Splitting domestic and international traffic works less good since there is interaction between them. There are passengers arriving on an international flight and connecting to a domestic flight and the other way around. It only works if there are good ground connections between the two airports.

As for Tokyo, Ibaraki was supposed to become the LCC airport for the Tokyo region but so far not much has come of that. LCCs still keep using the major airports Haneda and Narita. If they would move to Ibaraki this would free up capacity for lagacy carriers to expand at the major airports.
 
User avatar
Eindhoven
Posts: 190
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:21 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 10:37 am

WAW has WMI for LCCs but W6 uses WAW. Only FR uses WMI.
 
BENAir01
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 7:42 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 11:46 am

I personally think that splitting up traffic is better then having one massive airport. However it’s hard to decide how to split the traffic. The one for domestic one for international tends to not work great because as was said there will be passengers who want to go from one airport to the other. Having it split randomly can work but I think it becomes unorganized and too competitive. I think having one legacy airport and one LCC airport works best.
Btw some more examples:
Dallas (DFW and DAL)
Houston (IAH and HOU)
San Fransisco (SFO and OAK and maybe SJC/STS/SMF)
Sao Paolo (GRU and CGH and maybe VCP)
Rio de Janeiro (GIG and SDU)
Jakarta (CGK and HLP)
Why is flying so expensive? And why is flying well so much more?
 
Wednesdayite
Posts: 185
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:28 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:28 pm

Couple more:

Buenos Aires - AEP & EZE
Orlando - MCO & SFB
A318/19/20/21/30/40. B717/27/37/47/57/67/77/87. CRJ2/7. ERJ145/175/190. FKR50. IL62. MD11/82/83/88. TU154.
AA AC AF AI AR AS AT AV AZ BA BW BY CO DA DL F9 FR JJ KL LH MA NW NZ OS RG SU TK U2 UA US VS WN
 
User avatar
angusjt
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 4:08 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:31 pm

Melbourne has MEL, MEB and depending on how you define the city, AVV.
 
iyerhari
Posts: 962
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:25 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:33 pm

My belief is most secondary airports in the US are driven primarily by WN. DAL, MDW, HOU, BWI etc. vs traditional carriers.

DCA, IAD, BWI is another example.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 13992
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:41 pm

iyerhari wrote:
My belief is most secondary airports in the US are driven primarily by WN. DAL, MDW, HOU, BWI etc. vs traditional carriers.

DCA, IAD, BWI is another example.


Perhaps today that’s true (though it’s certainly not true in New York or Los Angeles), but historically it wasn’t. Look at the history of a place like MDW and you’ll see a menagerie of carriers. Heck, 15 years ago MDW had all six legacies and two LFC hubs.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
EvanWSFO
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:26 pm

I don't see how Los Angeles can be mentioned without adding BUR, LGB, and ONT. I realize ONT is in a different MSA, but it is usually considered a part of the LA area in conversations.

TPA/PIE can be added to the list as well.
I have been on this site 15 years. A unrecoverable email account led me to starting over. Those of you who call me a rookie, you may stop ok?
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2799
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:56 pm

Six more cases from top of my head:

Seoul - ICN and GMP (Separated mostly between international and domestic traffic, with GMP having a few "close to city" international flights to TSA, SHA, HND along with PEK and KIX)
Osaka / Keihanshin: KIX, ITM, and UKB. ITM is still where most domestic traffic goes, KIX is the international/LCC gateway, UKB is a loser mainly due to that artificial flight limit imposed there.
Taipei - TPE and TSA. TSA is literally in the middle of Taipei, was going to be domestic-only until the Taiwan HSR reduced that to 50% (if even that) of what it was. Now it has those GMP style "city center" flights to SHA, GMP, and HND along with a bunch of cross-strait (i.e. Non-stops to mainland China) flights.

The other 3 are smaller cases:
Nagoya - NGO and NKM. NKM is the old airport with a few regional flights, mainly on Fuji Dream Airlines.
Sapporo - CTS and OKD. OKD is in the middle of city but is tiny, mostly flights to other Hokkaido cities.
Kuala Lumpur - KUL and SZB - SZB being the old airport for KL and is only served by turboprop now due to restriction.
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:59 pm

EvanWSFO wrote:
I don't see how Los Angeles can be mentioned without adding BUR, LGB, and ONT. I realize ONT is in a different MSA, but it is usually considered a part of the LA area in conversations.

TPA/PIE can be added to the list as well.


Agree: Los Angeles = LAX, SNA, BUR, LGB, and ONT.

Of course, does that mean that New York = JFK, EWR, LGA, and HPN?
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:05 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
Six more cases from top of my head:

Seoul - ICN and GMP (Separated mostly between international and domestic traffic, with GMP having a few "close to city" international flights to TSA, SHA, HND along with PEK and KIX)
Osaka / Keihanshin: KIX, ITM, and UKB. ITM is still where most domestic traffic goes, KIX is the international/LCC gateway, UKB is a loser mainly due to that artificial flight limit imposed there.
Taipei - TPE and TSA. TSA is literally in the middle of Taipei, was going to be domestic-only until the Taiwan HSR reduced that to 50% (if even that) of what it was. Now it has those GMP style "city center" flights to SHA, GMP, and HND along with a bunch of cross-strait (i.e. Non-stops to mainland China) flights.

The other 3 are smaller cases:
Nagoya - NGO and NKM. NKM is the old airport with a few regional flights, mainly on Fuji Dream Airlines.
Sapporo - CTS and OKD. OKD is in the middle of city but is tiny, mostly flights to other Hokkaido cities.
Kuala Lumpur - KUL and SZB - SZB being the old airport for KL and is only served by turboprop now due to restriction.


Thats a lot of co-located airports, but remember the criteria was - 100,000,000+ passengers per year. Many on this list dont come close to that number.
 
bfitzflyer
Posts: 285
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:09 pm

For SFO/OAK with constraints of the bay, a sterile tunnel under the bay would be ideal, of course cost would be ridiculous, but compared to a new distant airport, probably not.
 
Janj
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:35 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:16 pm

I think systems like Santo Domingo and San Juan do it well (although there are a lot of reasons why they wouldn't function any other way). The major airports (SJU, SDQ) have both international and domestic/Caribbean flights and the smaller airports (SIG, JBQ) have service to smaller airports. For the short flights, the smaller airports can take some of the local traffic while the larger airport takes another bit along with connecting traffic.

Both SIG and JBQ have smaller runways and it's not like these cities have so much traffic they need a second airport, but they do. Doesn't really need an NYC/LON/LAX/MIA system to work.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5827
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:16 pm

EvanWSFO wrote:
I don't see how Los Angeles can be mentioned without adding BUR, LGB, and ONT. I realize ONT is in a different MSA, but it is usually considered a part of the LA area in conversations.


Because they're so small as to be irrelevant to the discussion; SNA itself is marginal. The LA metro isn't a division between hub and LCC carriers - it's geographic dispersion about an exceptionally sprawling metro area.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5827
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:35 pm

Zoedyn wrote:
There are quite a few cities and metropolitan areas in the world that have multiple airports built to accommodate mounting pax traffic.

The map below shows the nine of them that managed to handle a total pax volume in excess of 100 million via a multi-airport system (with the major airports indicated in red) in 2017 per wiki.

In contrast, ATL in the city of Atlanta is currently the world's only airport that has handled over 100 million pax per year. Moreover, according to agreements btwn Delta and the Atlanta City Council in 2016, the city of Atlanta promised not to build a second commercial airport during the next 20 years.

So, what do you make of a multi-airport system, esp vis-à-vis a single-airport system like ATL? For multi-airport systems, what sorts of scenario work best in the interest of passengers, airlines, and a metropolitan area respectively? One airport for LCCs, the other for legacy carriers? Or one mainly for international routes, others for domestic routes? Or let the airports be a mixer of all types of carriers and routes vying for a leading position in a laissez-faire manner? What're yr thoughts?


You're not going to get anything sensible out of a comparison of present networks. Airport distribution doesn't represent market forces by which I mean airlines or investors willing to build and expand airports. Airport infrastructure (certainly runways) reflects willingness by governments to build. Thirty years ago LGW and LHR represented the overwhelming fraction of LON traffic. Because of the UK government's unwillingness to expand those airports Luton and Stansted found a purpose. Frankfurt and Hahn. It is similar with Haneda and Narita. ATL goes hard in the other direction - for the past 40 years Delta has gotten what it wanted from the City of Atlanta, owner and operator of ATL. NW generally got what it wanted from Wayne County at DTW but neither NW (post-1989 leveraged buyout) nor Wayne County ever had the $$$ to think really big.

This is an economics of geography question. Aggregating demand certainly makes sense for hub economics (frequency, destination count, lower CASM with larger aircraft) but at some point the transit times from distant areas impose passenger costs that exceed air carrier efficiencies (the LAX traffic problem). Build good public transit to airports - as Paris has done to CDG and ORY - and most of that problem goes away.
 
User avatar
Zoedyn
Topic Author
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:46 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:36 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
I don't see how Los Angeles can be mentioned without adding BUR, LGB, and ONT. I realize ONT is in a different MSA, but it is usually considered a part of the LA area in conversations.


Because they're so small as to be irrelevant to the discussion; SNA itself is marginal. The LA metro isn't a division between hub and LCC carriers - it's geographic dispersion about an exceptionally sprawling metro area.


Totally :checkmark: :thumbsup:
Ppl who are bothered abt the specific list of airports, big or tiny, that a city/metropolitan area has can click the following link for a clue :rotfl:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... er_traffic
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2257
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:38 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
I don't see how Los Angeles can be mentioned without adding BUR, LGB, and ONT. I realize ONT is in a different MSA, but it is usually considered a part of the LA area in conversations.


Because they're so small as to be irrelevant to the discussion; SNA itself is marginal. The LA metro isn't a division between hub and LCC carriers - it's geographic dispersion about an exceptionally sprawling metro area.


Personally I wouldn’t call an additional +10 million pax combined to be marginal.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2799
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:42 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
Six more cases from top of my head:

Seoul - ICN and GMP (Separated mostly between international and domestic traffic, with GMP having a few "close to city" international flights to TSA, SHA, HND along with PEK and KIX)
Osaka / Keihanshin: KIX, ITM, and UKB. ITM is still where most domestic traffic goes, KIX is the international/LCC gateway, UKB is a loser mainly due to that artificial flight limit imposed there.
Taipei - TPE and TSA. TSA is literally in the middle of Taipei, was going to be domestic-only until the Taiwan HSR reduced that to 50% (if even that) of what it was. Now it has those GMP style "city center" flights to SHA, GMP, and HND along with a bunch of cross-strait (i.e. Non-stops to mainland China) flights.

The other 3 are smaller cases:
Nagoya - NGO and NKM. NKM is the old airport with a few regional flights, mainly on Fuji Dream Airlines.
Sapporo - CTS and OKD. OKD is in the middle of city but is tiny, mostly flights to other Hokkaido cities.
Kuala Lumpur - KUL and SZB - SZB being the old airport for KL and is only served by turboprop now due to restriction.


Thats a lot of co-located airports, but remember the criteria was - 100,000,000+ passengers per year. Many on this list dont come close to that number.


To be fair, I did missed that part.

On the other hand, while the 3 "small" case I would say are irrelevant to discussion (b/c NKM, OKD, and SZB are much smaller), along with something like HLP for Jakarta or PIE/SFB for Tampa/Orlando, respectively (or AVV for Melbourne...I can go on), in some cases, let say Seoul, the division of airports is certainly worth the discussion. In another case, Sao Paulo, you're talking about the busiest and the 2nd busiest airports in Brazil, and it's not like the other airports (i.e. CNF, GIG/SDU, BSB, etc.) are not busy, unlike the case of Buenos Aires (with COR, 3rd busiest airports in Argentina, having 1/3 the traffic of EZE).

Then there's cases like SF Bay Area (Although SFO, for the most part, is dominant; SJC/OAK each get fair amount of traffics), or even crazier, Washington DC/Baltimore Area, in which you got 3 airports that are essentially tie in pax number (BWI 23.8M, DCA 23.0M, IAD 21.4M) with each airports having its own niche.

As for Tokyo, Ibaraki was supposed to become the LCC airport for the Tokyo region but so far not much has come of that. LCCs still keep using the major airports Haneda and Narita. If they would move to Ibaraki this would free up capacity for lagacy carriers to expand at the major airports.


Well, the original development envision a Ryanair-esque airport at IBR. Of course, it's far and not all that accessible (Not on a Rail Line, with closest rail station being 30+ mins bus ride away). I would argue that HND reopening for international traffic hurts it more, though. International flights at NRT moved over to HND if they could, which opened up slots/spaces at NRT, which in turn, makes it easier for LCC to fill those space up (not sure about the airport usage/landing fees, though, although I can imagined NRT at least giving some discount to attract LCC traffic).

EDIT:
MIflyer12 wrote:
You're not going to get anything sensible out of a comparison of present networks. Airport distribution doesn't represent market forces by which I mean airlines or investors willing to build and expand airports. Airport infrastructure (certainly runways) reflects willingness by governments to build. Thirty years ago LGW and LHR represented the overwhelming fraction of LON traffic. Because of the UK government's unwillingness to expand those airports Luton and Stansted found a purpose. Frankfurt and Hahn. It is similar with Haneda and Narita. ATL goes hard in the other direction - for the past 40 years Delta has gotten what it wanted from the City of Atlanta, owner and operator of ATL. NW generally got what it wanted from Wayne County at DTW but neither NW (post-1989 leveraged buyout) nor Wayne County ever had the $$$ to think really big.


There are times which it's cheaper to build a new airport way outside the city than expand the current one, though.

Let say, HND and NRT. HND has more or less no room to expand (Yes, there's the 4th runway at HND, but without NRT even that's not even close to enough), it was back when pretty much all TPAC traffic, especially from US, used Tokyo as the scissors hub to rest of APAC region, and Japan was booming back then. Same can be argued for SHA vs. PVG, or GMP vs. ICN. You really think KE can used GMP as-is as a TPAC hub?

And I would argue LGW being a "busy" airport is an artificial creation by itself - namely, Bermuda II which restrict which carrier can use LHR.
Last edited by zakuivcustom on Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:06 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Of course, does that mean that New York = JFK, EWR, LGA, and HPN?


Even more than that. The whole New York metro area is served by 6 airports:

John F Kennedy
Newark
La Guardia
Westchester County
Long Island MacArthur
Newburgh/Stewart
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 3:17 pm

Eindhoven wrote:
WAW has WMI for LCCs but W6 uses WAW. Only FR uses WMI.


There are indeed more examples of airlines using the "wrong" airport, mostly LCCs using the major airports while there is an LCC airport available. For example in Bangkok Norwegian uses Suvarnabhumi. You'd expect them at Don Mueang since that's the LCC airport for Bangkok. As a result a good number of their passengers will go straight to the shuttle bus to Don Mueang upon arrival at Suvarnabhumi. At least, that's what I did when I was there.
 
jplatts
Posts: 2764
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:26 pm

Here is a list of US metro areas served by more than 1 commercial airport:
Boston - BOS, MHT, and PVD
Charlotte - CLT and USA
Chicago - ORD and MDW
Columbus, OH - CMH and LCK
Dallas/Fort Worth - DFW and DAL
Fort Myers - RSW and PGD
Houston - IAH and HOU
Los Angeles - LAX, SNA, BUR, LGB, and ONT
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/West Palm Beach - MIA, FLL, and PBI
New York City - LGA, JFK, EWR, HPN, ISP, and SWF
Orlando - MCO and SFB
Philadelphia - PHL and TTN
Phoenix - PHX and AZA
Pittsburgh - PIT and LBE
Tampa/St. Petersburg - TPA and PIE
St. Louis - STL and BLV
San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose - SFO, OAK, and SJC
Seattle - SEA and PAE (future)
Washington, DC/Baltimore - DCA, IAD, and BWI
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:03 pm

And here's a list of European metro areas served by more than one commercial airport:

Barcelona - El Prat, Girona and Reus
Belfast - International and George Best
Berlin - Tegel and Schönefeld
Brussels - Zaventem and Charleroi
Dusseldorf - International and Weeze
Frankfurt - International and Hahn
Glasgow - International and Prestwick
Istanbul - Ataturk and Sabiha Gokcen
Kyiv - Boryspil and Zhuliany
London - Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Southend and City
Milan - Malpensa, Linate and Bergamo
Moscow - Sheremetyevo, Domodedovo, Vnukovo and Zhukovsky
Munich - Strauss and Memmingen
Oslo - Gardermoen and Sandefjord-Torp
Paris - Charles de Gaulle, Orly and Beauvais
Reykjavik - Keflavik and City
Rome - Fiumicino and Ciampino
Stockholm - Arlanda, Bromma, Skavsta and Vasteras
Venice - Marco Polo and Treviso
Warsaw - Chopin and Modlin

Soon: Amsterdam - Schiphol and Lelystad

In almost all of these cases you can see a clear difference between large major airports for the legacies and small alternative airports for the LCCs. It is more obvious in Europe than it is in America. Exception are the "city airports" like London City and Milan Linate. They're aiming at business traffic that needs fast access to the city, faster than can be offered from the larger major airports outside the city. As convenient as they are, they're not cheap and only aiming at those who can afford it.
 
User avatar
Zoedyn
Topic Author
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:46 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:12 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
You're not going to get anything sensible out of a comparison of present networks. Airport distribution doesn't represent market forces by which I mean airlines or investors willing to build and expand airports. Airport infrastructure (certainly runways) reflects willingness by governments to build. Thirty years ago LGW and LHR represented the overwhelming fraction of LON traffic. Because of the UK government's unwillingness to expand those airports Luton and Stansted found a purpose. Frankfurt and Hahn. It is similar with Haneda and Narita. ATL goes hard in the other direction - for the past 40 years Delta has gotten what it wanted from the City of Atlanta, owner and operator of ATL. NW generally got what it wanted from Wayne County at DTW but neither NW (post-1989 leveraged buyout) nor Wayne County ever had the $$$ to think really big.

This is an economics of geography question. Aggregating demand certainly makes sense for hub economics (frequency, destination count, lower CASM with larger aircraft) but at some point the transit times from distant areas impose passenger costs that exceed air carrier efficiencies (the LAX traffic problem). Build good public transit to airports - as Paris has done to CDG and ORY - and most of that problem goes away.


Well, I should say whether one can get sensible stuff out of a worldwide comparison of present networks pretty much depends POVs and perspectives
There is just too much out there to compare and ponder re multi-airport systems in meaningful, instructive ways, besides the issue of airport distribution itself being a significant topic (e.g, very basically how multiple airports get distributed the way they are, what elements factor in)
While each multi-airport system is unique in a given metropolitan area and social/institutional environment, it makes good sense to draw commonality out of them without losing sight of their particularities
Are there any very successful examples of well-functioning multi-airport systems? What holds the key to their success? What airports are favorably placed in a competing multi-airport system? What about the less than successful or even disastrous airports in multi-airport systems? What lessons could be drawn thereof?Any airport politics at work for multi-airport cities and metropolitan areas? Should a multi-airport system be a zero-sum game? How and where to strike a proper balance btwn all stakeholders in a multi-airport system? :?: :beady:

Agree a point of view from economics of geography can certainly shed light on the way multi-airport systems work, but I doubt that perspective alone is sufficient for the task at hand
 
User avatar
Zoedyn
Topic Author
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:46 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:47 am

PatrickZ80 wrote:
LupineChemist wrote:
The Bangkok system of LCCs to DMK and Legacies to BKK works pretty well. But main is it a pain to make the transfer between them, even with the free bus because of Bangkok traffic.

They really need to finish the BTS line that will end up at DMK


I agree splitting legacy carriers and LCCs is a good idea, these passengers most likely won't interact so they don't need to be at the same airport. Passengers arriving on a legacy airline will connect to a legacy airline and passengers arriving at a LCC will connect to a LCC.

Splitting domestic and international traffic works less good since there is interaction between them. There are passengers arriving on an international flight and connecting to a domestic flight and the other way around. It only works if there are good ground connections between the two airports.

As for Tokyo, Ibaraki was supposed to become the LCC airport for the Tokyo region but so far not much has come of that. LCCs still keep using the major airports Haneda and Narita. If they would move to Ibaraki this would free up capacity for lagacy carriers to expand at the major airports.


Not quite convinced about splitting LCCs and legacies in a clear-cut way on the ground of little interaction btwn their passengers
At least from the perspective of airlines in many markets, LCCs provide significant or considerable feed to legacies that are based in hubs featuring heavy transit traffic, though " flagship" hub airports in the sense of flagship carriers indeed tend to frown upon LCCs for financial yields consideration
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Tue Apr 10, 2018 6:09 am

Zoedyn wrote:
Are there any very successful examples of well-functioning multi-airport systems?


Probably not, but neither are there very successful examples of single-airports for a large city or metro area. There will always be downsides to each situation.

What happens when you got a big city with only one airport in the entire region and there is some kind of incident at the airport that forces it to shut down. Will you shut down the only available airport without any alternative? What if there's too much demand and the airport isn't big enough to handle all that demand? Another downside is that you don't give airlines a choice, it's either that airport or nothing.

Long story short, there is no perfect situation. Multi airport isn't perfect and single airport isn't perfect either.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:13 am

The most efficient way of splitting operations is IMO what i.e. Moscow has and Beijing will have with the 2nd airport. That is, a split by alliances and/or carrier types, with each airport having a full offer of flights and offering sufficient capacity. SVO for Skyteam, DME for oneworld and Star, VKO for LCC's and unaligned.

This is better than international/domestic splits, as it does not generate cannibalization.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2473
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:19 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
You're not going to get anything sensible out of a comparison of present networks. Airport distribution doesn't represent market forces by which I mean airlines or investors willing to build and expand airports. Airport infrastructure (certainly runways) reflects willingness by governments to build. Thirty years ago LGW and LHR represented the overwhelming fraction of LON traffic. Because of the UK government's unwillingness to expand those airports Luton and Stansted found a purpose.


Stansted was built by the then government-owned British Airports Authority on the site of a WW2 military airfield specifically as an additional London airport. It certainly wasn't built to meet demand from people in the immediate vicinity, as even now there aren't all that many of them. But it does mean that a large number of people living to the east and northeast of London don't have to either cross Central London or follow a circuitous route round the outer fringes to reach LHR or LGW.

LTN was and is owned by the local municipality. Thirty years ago it was busy with charter flights to summer sun destinations, now it is busy with low-cost point to point flights, to many of the same destinations, but also to Central and Eastern Europe which 30 years ago were effectively inaccessible to mass travel due to being part of the Soviet bloc. Don't blame airport planners for failing to anticipate the biggest socio-political upheaval in a generation with the collapse of the Soviet Union and its empire of puppet regimes. Again Luton serves a geographic segment of London and a fast-growing area of the South Midlands for which it is far easier to get to than LHR and LGW.

London isn't a planned city. It has grown haphazardly over 2,000 years, and city planning as a science is very much a 19th/20th century invention.
 
User avatar
Zoedyn
Topic Author
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:46 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:15 pm

Pax traffic distribution by airport in some major multi-airport cities (based on data for 2017, small airports not included)

Image
 
User avatar
Zoedyn
Topic Author
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:46 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:26 pm

Pax traffic distribution among all the 6 commercial airports, big and small, in London for 2017

Image
 
User avatar
macsog6
Posts: 242
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:25 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:29 pm

bfitzflyer wrote:
For SFO/OAK with constraints of the bay, a sterile tunnel under the bay would be ideal, of course cost would be ridiculous, but compared to a new distant airport, probably not.



It's not that far-fetched, but still unlikely to happen. Had the BART spur to OAK been built with a direct connection into the overall BART system, instead of having to change trains in a non-sterile station, I could have seen sterile trains running between OAK and SFO. But the end terminals at each airport are not located so that they could be secured easily as well. It seems that an easy transfer between OAK and SFO was not planned.
Sixty Plus Years of Flying! "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Saint Ex
 
csavel
Posts: 1397
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:28 pm

macsog6 wrote:
bfitzflyer wrote:
For SFO/OAK with constraints of the bay, a sterile tunnel under the bay would be ideal, of course cost would be ridiculous, but compared to a new distant airport, probably not.



It's not that far-fetched, but still unlikely to happen. Had the BART spur to OAK been built with a direct connection into the overall BART system, instead of having to change trains in a non-sterile station, I could have seen sterile trains running between OAK and SFO. But the end terminals at each airport are not located so that they could be secured easily as well. It seems that an easy transfer between OAK and SFO was not planned.


I always thought a sterile method of transport from LGA to JFK (special airtrains?) would be a good idea. Doubt the political will do extend airtrain from Jamaica Station to LGA, although seems logical to me. Also don't know how "sterile" it could actually be b/c it isn't a tunnel underground, people could have access and plant all sorts of weapons, but even if luggage is re-screened, perhaps the pax don't. Akron - NYC - anywhere easy peasy!

Dream on.
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:54 pm

csavel wrote:
I always thought a sterile method of transport from LGA to JFK (special airtrains?) would be a good idea. Doubt the political will do extend airtrain from Jamaica Station to LGA, although seems logical to me. Also don't know how "sterile" it could actually be b/c it isn't a tunnel underground, people could have access and plant all sorts of weapons, but even if luggage is re-screened, perhaps the pax don't. Akron - NYC - anywhere easy peasy!

Dream on.


That's one of the disadvantages of having airports literally in the middle of the city. The distance itself is peanuts, but everything is already built upon so there's absolutely no room left for anything.
 
phxsanslcpdx
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:36 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 7:05 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
Thats a lot of co-located airports, but remember the criteria was - 100,000,000+ passengers per year. Many on this list dont come close to that number.


Very true. And I think it's helpful to look at that original list...

LA, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, London, Paris, Dubai, Beijing, Shanghai, & Tokyo. Add Hong Kong/Guangzhou. With Moscow, Bangkok, and Istanbul right near the 100,000,000-passenger threshold.

To me, this looks like a list of the world's major economic centers, plus Atlanta. Of course there could be quibbling about what cities really should make up such a list, but this looks pretty spot on to me. And Atlanta is punching significantly above its weight. Having a single major airport brings Atlanta the kind of connectivity and traffic associated with much bigger metropolises.

It's telling, though, that none of the top-tier cities have just a single airport. Historical development patterns and the sprawling nature of big cities ensures that it's not really feasible. Envisioning the city of the future, though, I think it would clearly be ideal to reserve space for a conveniently-located airport with tons of room to grow, and to encourage density rather than sprawl.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 3915
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:27 pm

phxsanslcpdx wrote:
It's telling, though, that none of the top-tier cities have just a single airport. Historical development patterns and the sprawling nature of big cities ensures that it's not really feasible. Envisioning the city of the future, though, I think it would clearly be ideal to reserve space for a conveniently-located airport with tons of room to grow, and to encourage density rather than sprawl.


The thing is that a convenient location and room to grow don't go hand in hand, it's often either one or the other. Convenient locations mostly mean in the middle of the city, but the middle of the city is also the most dense populated area and it's a constant fight for available space for either the airport or the city to grow. Let alone the noise pollution which you clearly don't want in the heart of the city.

Sprawl doesn't have to be bad as long as you got the airports conveniently connected to each other, and you should ensure those connections before expanding the city into the grounds where these connections would need to be. Envisioning the city of the future as you call it, I'd draw a circle around it at a certain radius from the city center to just outside the city and put a number of airports on that circle. Then make sure there's a ground connection like a high speed train running between the airports at the circle so it's convenient to get from one airport to another and last but not least I'd place some spikes from each airport to the city center, also with ground connections running on them, to connect every airport with the city center. In this situation each airport is equal to another without them becoming too big. Of course there'd also need to be rules to ensure equal spreading of flights over the airports, like an airline that already serves a certain destination from one airport is not allowed to also serve that same destination from another airport. Connecting passengers can take the ground connections around the city.
 
c933103
Posts: 3822
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:45 pm

Recently China have been pushing for the concept of PRD metro area. If we follow the concept then the area would currently have HKG, CAN, SZX, ZUH, MFM, FOS as airports with scheduled service, and then there are a couples that does not and numerous in planning stage.
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18109
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:56 pm

The downside to split hubs if fewer connections. Take Paris, ORY handles (going from memory here, dangerous) 27 flights CDG doesn't. That is 27 flights (assuming the number is accurate) that cannot connect to the majority of the long haul network.

In today's world of click and fly internet planning, it is too easy to switch flights.

Another example is NRT and HND split. Often those I know flying to smaller cities in Japan just hubbed at ICN...

The rule of thumb is for every O&D passenger, you can support one connecting passenger. If for someone someone doesn't want the job...

Note, but support it is having the flight at the time someone wants to fly. The era of staying in a hotel to connect is pretty much over and done by a tiny part of the market that isn't the premium market.

Zoedyn wrote:
Pax traffic distribution by airport in some major multi-airport cities (based on data for 2017, small airports not included)

Image

Fascinating.

Now where a split hub helps is when a metropolitan area takes too much time to cross to use another airport, so spoke airports help.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
JibberJim
Posts: 80
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 1:33 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Wed Apr 11, 2018 9:43 pm

The corrollory to this is what is the largest O&D city with only one airport, the 100 million comparison with Atlanta is rather different as all the other multi airport cities above are huge O&D markets, whereas Atlanta is a small one (less than 30million?) Dubai is presumably the next least O&D market, but even that specifically targets stop over holidays (for bilateral reasons too I believe) when hubbing which I don't imagine many people do in Atlanta.

The multiple airports in O&D destinations split the market when people want to visit different areas, or come from different areas, particularly in short haul, I'm guessing LON-PMI, BCN or similar can be done from all the london airports?
 
incitatus
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:09 am

Multiple airports is a bad deal. Even splitting LCCs from other carriers, one is assuming that such a split is voluntary and clean. Travelers can assemble multiple itineraries in separate bookings creating unique origin-destination pairs. Imagine if the Ryanair operation at Stansted and the BA operation at LHR were at the same airport. That would generate a lot of incremental traffic for both carriers. Incremental traffic would translate into incremental service, which leads to more traffic.... a virtuous cycle with London passengers benefiting from more service.

The flip-side is surface access. For a large metro area, having a single airport is not convenient to part of the urban area. To have a single successful airport, access needs to be planned well.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
KBUF
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:12 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:31 am

Couple more to add to the list:

Buffalo/Niagara Falls: BUF and IAG
Toronto: YYZ and YTZ (and debatably YHM)
"Starting today, the Buffalo Sabres' reason for existence will be to win a Stanley Cup."-Terry Pegula, February 22, 2011
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2799
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Thu Apr 12, 2018 2:16 pm

JibberJim wrote:
The corrollory to this is what is the largest O&D city with only one airport, the 100 million comparison with Atlanta is rather different as all the other multi airport cities above are huge O&D markets, whereas Atlanta is a small one (less than 30million?) Dubai is presumably the next least O&D market, but even that specifically targets stop over holidays (for bilateral reasons too I believe) when hubbing which I don't imagine many people do in Atlanta.

The multiple airports in O&D destinations split the market when people want to visit different areas, or come from different areas, particularly in short haul, I'm guessing LON-PMI, BCN or similar can be done from all the london airports?


Not necessarily one single airport, but Beijing would fit the largest O&D part 95% (PEK = 95.78M pax, NAY = 5.95M pax; which is way higher than the usual 70-30 split seen in Tokyo, Shanghai, and Paris). For true "one airport city" with largest O&D I would say Hong Kong, even though some would argue that SZX serves as the "2nd airport" for Hong Kong, and HKG certainly has its share of connection traffic also.

c933103 wrote:
Recently China have been pushing for the concept of PRD metro area. If we follow the concept then the area would currently have HKG, CAN, SZX, ZUH, MFM, FOS as airports with scheduled service, and then there are a couples that does not and numerous in planning stage.


As much as they want to push the "Yueguangao Greater Bay Area" concept, it's still triple cores (HK, Shenzhen, Guangzhou) with 3 existing large airports (If you included HKG into the list of "busiest airports in China" list, it would be HKG being 2nd busiest, CAN being 4th busiest, and SZX being 6th busiest). At least on domestic flights, very small amount of people would fly to CAN to go to Shenzhen (and v.v.).

At max, right now it's more like HKG/SZX being one group, ZUH/MFM being 2nd group, CAN/FUO being the 3rd group. Yes, you can throw in Dongguan in there (Equidistant to SZX and CAN, or even HUZ if you're east enough), which can makes things complicated. On the other hand, you got (although much smaller) cases like Trenton in between NYC and PHL also, but NYC and PHL are certainly not counted as a single metro area (with TTN usually being counted towards secondary Philly airport IIRC).
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
evank516
Posts: 1961
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:42 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
EvanWSFO wrote:
I don't see how Los Angeles can be mentioned without adding BUR, LGB, and ONT. I realize ONT is in a different MSA, but it is usually considered a part of the LA area in conversations.

TPA/PIE can be added to the list as well.


Agree: Los Angeles = LAX, SNA, BUR, LGB, and ONT.

Of course, does that mean that New York = JFK, EWR, LGA, and HPN?


New York-JFK, EWR, LGA, HPN, and ISP. ISP is officially a NYC Airport per the FAA.
 
iadadd
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:16 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:49 pm

DC/Baltimore area has 3 major airports for a metro area of roughly 9.5 million. I think what makes the 3 work together is that 2 of them( IAD and BWI) are relatively far from the Downtown D.C. core and in turn makes DCA the attractive domestic high yield airport. Dulles is the primary International airport and also serves the Northern Virginia domestic market, while BWI is able to leverage its far distance by also serving as Baltimore's sole airport and the only major airport in Maryland. I believe that if Dulles was built somewhat closer into D.C. such as Tysons or Falls Church area, then DCA would serve no purpose and Dulles would serve as the primary International and Domestic airport.

The market is overall large and high yielding with many FFP holders staying pretty loyal to either Star or OneWorld carriers, and WN afficionados choosing to fly out of BWI
 
c933103
Posts: 3822
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:44 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Recently China have been pushing for the concept of PRD metro area. If we follow the concept then the area would currently have HKG, CAN, SZX, ZUH, MFM, FOS as airports with scheduled service, and then there are a couples that does not and numerous in planning stage.


As much as they want to push the "Yueguangao Greater Bay Area" concept, it's still triple cores (HK, Shenzhen, Guangzhou) with 3 existing large airports (If you included HKG into the list of "busiest airports in China" list, it would be HKG being 2nd busiest, CAN being 4th busiest, and SZX being 6th busiest). At least on domestic flights, very small amount of people would fly to CAN to go to Shenzhen (and v.v.).

At max, right now it's more like HKG/SZX being one group, ZUH/MFM being 2nd group, CAN/FUO being the 3rd group. Yes, you can throw in Dongguan in there (Equidistant to SZX and CAN, or even HUZ if you're east enough), which can makes things complicated. On the other hand, you got (although much smaller) cases like Trenton in between NYC and PHL also, but NYC and PHL are certainly not counted as a single metro area (with TTN usually being counted towards secondary Philly airport IIRC).

I am not too sure about situation of different airports on the ground but from what I have heard, I have been told.tjat recent exponential growth of ZUH traffic figures are mainly from.travellers coming from Guangzhou/Shenzhen? Although the airport is 1 hour bus + 1 hour train from Guangzhou, and 1 hour bus + 1 hour ferry from Shenzhen
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2799
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Thu Apr 12, 2018 10:24 pm

c933103 wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Recently China have been pushing for the concept of PRD metro area. If we follow the concept then the area would currently have HKG, CAN, SZX, ZUH, MFM, FOS as airports with scheduled service, and then there are a couples that does not and numerous in planning stage.


As much as they want to push the "Yueguangao Greater Bay Area" concept, it's still triple cores (HK, Shenzhen, Guangzhou) with 3 existing large airports (If you included HKG into the list of "busiest airports in China" list, it would be HKG being 2nd busiest, CAN being 4th busiest, and SZX being 6th busiest). At least on domestic flights, very small amount of people would fly to CAN to go to Shenzhen (and v.v.).

At max, right now it's more like HKG/SZX being one group, ZUH/MFM being 2nd group, CAN/FUO being the 3rd group. Yes, you can throw in Dongguan in there (Equidistant to SZX and CAN, or even HUZ if you're east enough), which can makes things complicated. On the other hand, you got (although much smaller) cases like Trenton in between NYC and PHL also, but NYC and PHL are certainly not counted as a single metro area (with TTN usually being counted towards secondary Philly airport IIRC).

I am not too sure about situation of different airports on the ground but from what I have heard, I have been told.tjat recent exponential growth of ZUH traffic figures are mainly from.travellers coming from Guangzhou/Shenzhen? Although the airport is 1 hour bus + 1 hour train from Guangzhou, and 1 hour bus + 1 hour ferry from Shenzhen


I am not sure myself either. On the other hand, part of the exponential growth also has to do with people in western PRD no longer having to go east to SZX or north to CAN with the greatly increased amount of flight from ZUH.

And maybe booming tourism to Macau also help the pax number?
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
User avatar
Zoedyn
Topic Author
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:46 pm

Re: Discussion thread for multi-airport cities/metropolitan areas: pros & cons, scenarios and patterns

Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:10 pm

It is interesting to note the advantages/disadvantages of an airport in terms of its location/connectivity in relation to the urban core vis-à-vis its fellows within a multi-airport system, as shown in the maps below

Image
Last edited by Zoedyn on Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos