https://atlanta.curbed.com/2019/2/21/18 ... on-airport

As the report points out, this isn’t the first time state senators have tried to wrest control of ATL

On Wednesday Feb 20th, "State Sen. Burt Jones, a Republican representing Jackson, introduced legislation that could create a state agency to control Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport", which could also pave the way for a possible 2nd commercial airport in the region, even though his similar move failed last year

The report also said such move is sure to prompt strong opposition from the City of Atlanta, as well as Delta Air Lines, the airport’s largest tenant

It seems that talk of state takeover of ATL and the haggle over it have been constantly in the news over the past decades. State Sen. Burt Jones' proposed legislation is just a most recent case in point

So, seriously, what do you think are the odds of such proposed legislation getting passed, say in the next decade, regardless of Burt Jones' chance this time?

Sounds good. A second commerical airport is in the best interest of the public.

It’s currently a monopoly. Plain and simple. Something needs to be done. Not sure giving it to the state is the best option though... Woth that in mind though, the state of Georgia is much better run than the city of Atlanta...

Regarding a second airport, this would be an ideal opportunity for United to establish a small SE hub if the proposed 2nd airport has 20+ gates. Bit smaller than MDW, but still significant for the operation they need in the SE. I know this is wishful thinking on my part. However, more competition in ATL would be a wonderful thing for Atlantans and consumers in the SE.

ATL is already run like a well oiled machine, that hick just wants a piece of the pie.

The less the state meddles in Atlanta's affairs, the better. They've been trying to undermine the city for decades.

ual763 wrote:

It’s currently a monopoly. Plain and simple. Something needs to be done. Not sure giving it to the state is the best option though... Woth that in mind though, the state of Georgia is much better run than the city of Atlanta...

Regarding a second airport, this would be an ideal opportunity for United to establish a small SE hub if the proposed 2nd airport has 20+ gates. Bit smaller than MDW, but still significant for the operation they need in the SE. I know this is wishful thinking on my part. However, more competition in ATL would be a wonderful thing for Atlantans and consumers in the SE.

Not sure what world you live in, but Atlanta just lost its last major Bank because of state government management policies. United had its opportunity to expand in Atlanta when Eastern went of out of business. Delta, and the City of Atlanta don't support this- so it want happen.

https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/the-b ... ulK46dQDJ/

The banking capital that Georgia lawmakers created -- in Charlotte | AJC

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

How would adding another airport cause anything like this? This sounds just like Delta’s nonsense argument that a second airport would require split hub operations. No, this is the dumbest thing I’ve heard.

Also sounds a bit like the same issue Charlotte is having with the state legislature.

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

Fargo wrote:

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

I'm not sure if I would call generations of laws and lawsuits.....coexisting just fine.....

Won't happen. When it comes to transport-related issues, the GA legislature is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Delta Air Lines and nothing will change until Ed Bastian says otherwise.

I can't imagine any Government institution succeed in running a commercial enterprise. Which, if any, government organisation are well-run and efficient?

Fargo wrote:

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

Do they though?

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Exactly. I get the desire for more competition to drive fares down. Trouble is, the idea here is clearly to use the existing airport to subsidize a new one. The reason ATL is the busiest airport in the world is that it has an extremely low cost per enplaned passenger (second-lowest after CLT). That makes it cheap to push connecting passengers through ATL. A new airport will cost a lot and will unavoidably be loss-making, at least in the first years. Paying those costs out of ATL's fees will make a lot of connecting routes non-viable. If other airlines badly want to set up a small hub at ATL, they should make deliberate provision for them in the next ATL expansion plan. Personally, I'm sceptical that that's the case.
Either way, building a new airport elsewhere only adds cost for duplicate facilities. That's probably why other airlines would love the idea. Even if they didn't use the new facilities, it would drive up costs for Delta on all their connecting routes. In fact, if the new airport were a white elephant with few revenues that was subsidized out of ATL's fees, that would be even better because it would further increase Delta's costs. I'm not from ATL, I don't regularly fly Delta, and I have no emotional attachment to any of the above. I'm as close to as dispassionate an observer as can be.

And I don't understand anybody claiming ATL is poorly run. It's a wonder of the world.

ATL on the airport authority side is known for being one of the most corrupt airports in the United States. While operationally it runs fine, much of that is do to the airline(s) and not the airport authority. I can see why they want to pull it under the state's control and away from the corruption of the City, but that is going to be a tough battle to fight.

Fargo wrote:

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

Do they? DAL has a cap on the number of gates, and this has been the subject of years and years of lawsuits.
And, for years (and still in a way today), DFW is blocking DAL's expansion.

So, DFW & DAL do not coexist "just fine".

WayexTDI wrote:

Fargo wrote:

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

Do they? DAL has a cap on the number of gates, and this has been the subject of years and years of lawsuits.
And, for years (and still in a way today), DFW is blocking DAL's expansion.

So, DFW & DAL do not coexist "just fine".

ORD and MDW
SFO, OAK, and SJC
LAX, BUR, SNA, LGB, and ONT
IAH and HOU
JFK, EWR, and LGB

There are plenty of other examples besides Dallas...

As an Atlanta-area native, I fail to see the point of this effort.
1. Mr. Jones is from a rural part of Georgia that doesn't see much growth, and his DISTRICT certainly won't see an airport anywhere closer to it than ATL already is.
2. Multiple efforts have been made to open an airport well outside of the City of Atlanta. They've all failed miserably. I don't see how putting ATL under state control would change any of that.
3. When I was living in Atlanta I flew out of ATL to dozens of places, and the last time I flew in prices on Delta were very reasonable. I can't say I was ever charged unreasonably.
4. Delta has just as many influential friends in the State Capitol as they do on the City Council.
5. How many airports are controlled by States? Georgia is a geographically large state, and demographically several different planets depending on which part of the state one resides. I notice that of the supporters of this bill, only one appears to represent the Metro Atlanta area. One of the co-sponsors is from as far south as Irwin County, which is a small farming area about four hours from Atlanta, and on an entirely unrelated note where college roommate was from. Just exactly where does this wide array of individuals expect a second airport to be? If these Senators think that ATL isn't efficiently run by the City of Atlanta, I can only imagine the logjam that it could be when people from places like Irwin County or Chickamauga start weighing in and wanting their piece of the action. Based on my own experience there's a lot of mistrust and dislike for Atlanta and I would expect that to filter into the political realm, with resulting demands for named benefits of whatever little town the State Senator wished.
6. I've been saying for several years now that as Atlanta grows and becomes less Southern it'll make for some interesting politics, and this may be one of those moments.

qcpilotxf wrote:

I'm not sure if I would call generations of laws and lawsuits.....coexisting just fine.....

You are clearly not a lawyer then. It is working just the way they want it.

DarthLobster wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Fargo wrote:

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

Do they? DAL has a cap on the number of gates, and this has been the subject of years and years of lawsuits.
And, for years (and still in a way today), DFW is blocking DAL's expansion.

So, DFW & DAL do not coexist "just fine".

ORD and MDW
SFO, OAK, and SJC
LAX, BUR, SNA, LGB, and ONT
IAH and HOU
JFK, EWR, and LGB

There are plenty of other examples besides Dallas...

Look at the size of those metros relative to ATL, and then look at the non-stop destination counts. There are good reasons for aggregating traffic.

DarthLobster wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Fargo wrote:

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

Do they? DAL has a cap on the number of gates, and this has been the subject of years and years of lawsuits.
And, for years (and still in a way today), DFW is blocking DAL's expansion.

So, DFW & DAL do not coexist "just fine".

ORD and MDW
SFO, OAK, and SJC
LAX, BUR, SNA, LGB, and ONT
IAH and HOU
JFK, EWR, and LGB

There are plenty of other examples besides Dallas...

Look at the size of those metros relative to ATL, and then look at the non-stop destination counts. There are good reasons for aggregating traffic.

I think when you look at cities with multiple airports, the "second" airport came into existence because the "original" airport could not expand either terminals and/or runways (DCA - IAD, MDW - ORD come to mind, not sure, but maybe DAL - DFW). I don't think ATL necessarily has this issue, or am I wrong?

TTailedTiger wrote:

Sounds good. A second commerical airport is in the best interest of the public.

But how so? ATL mostly serves as a connection hub and the O/D traffic in Atlanta is a rather small fraction of the total annual passengers.

For me, people's pocket has spoken for a LONG time when MCN (Macon, GA) cannot sustain non-stop long terms. MCN could serve as an alternative for that state senator from Jackson GA (it's halfway b/t ATL and Macon anyway), but even people in Macon decided that it's better to just drive up to ATL.

I also fail to see how any 2nd airport proposal (All of which are on northern part of Atlanta metro, i.e. Dekalb-Peachtree or Paulding) helps a tiny town SE of Atlanta.

Ultimately it's more wannabe money grab attempt by rural GA on something that's lucrative (ATL Airport) but they don't get a share (in terms of money) of.

DarthLobster wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Fargo wrote:

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

Do they? DAL has a cap on the number of gates, and this has been the subject of years and years of lawsuits.
And, for years (and still in a way today), DFW is blocking DAL's expansion.

So, DFW & DAL do not coexist "just fine".

ORD and MDW
SFO, OAK, and SJC
LAX, BUR, SNA, LGB, and ONT
IAH and HOU
JFK, EWR, and LGB

There are plenty of other examples besides Dallas...

Difficult comparisons as some of those are physically separated from the primary due to geography or water or are in another state. The L.A. and Bay areas have multiple "city centers" with their own population concentrations. And many secondary airports existed at the same time as the primary area airport, not like they sprang up later.

ATL could really use another airport north of the city. Where have previous proposals been, expanding Peachtree airport? I never really understood how that would work with that airport in a growing area and the CDC and IRS right next door (federal government probably not wanting to give up that property).

SonaSounds wrote:

ATL on the airport authority side is known for being one of the most corrupt airports in the United States. While operationally it runs fine, much of that is do to the airline(s) and not the airport authority. I can see why they want to pull it under the state's control and away from the corruption of the City, but that is going to be a tough battle to fight.

From where I sit, the state does everything it can to undermine autonomy in the City of Atlanta, from things like denying funding for MARTA (the only heavy metro system in the country not to receive some level of state funding) and introducing myriad bills to try to slow the flow of new businesses in Georgia for primarily political reasons. I also don't know of any evidence that shows ATL is more corrupt than any other airport, and its success speaks for itself.

This whole idea of the state taking over ATL is a purely political move by rural politicians who don't like Atlanta and what it stands for in their minds. I doubt it will get anywhere as its a bill trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

SonaSounds wrote:

ATL on the airport authority side is known for being one of the most corrupt airports in the United States. While operationally it runs fine, much of that is do to the airline(s) and not the airport authority. I can see why they want to pull it under the state's control and away from the corruption of the City, but that is going to be a tough battle to fight.

What complete and utter nonsense. You have no facts to back up your politically/racially based assertion of ATL being one of the most corrupt airports in the US.

Another key, critical, point that will scuttle this effort : Delta has primary right of refusal to any change in ownership of the airport.

It's written into their lease, which was just renewed for another 30 years.

Atlwarrior wrote:

United had its opportunity to expand in Atlanta when Eastern went of out of business. Delta, and the City of Atlanta don't support this- so it want happen.

EA went bust during a significant recession. Georgia and Atlanta tried everything they could to lure another carrier to fill the void — NW was awarded EA’s DCA assets (despite not being the highest bidder) on the promise that it would open a hub at ATL, but alas, neither it nor UA nor any other carrier wanted to go up against DL, who began shifting capacity from DFW to bulk ATL up even bigger.

compensateme wrote:

Atlwarrior wrote:

United had its opportunity to expand in Atlanta when Eastern went of out of business. Delta, and the City of Atlanta don't support this- so it want happen.

EA went bust during a significant recession. Georgia and Atlanta tried everything they could to lure another carrier to fill the void — NW was awarded EA’s DCA assets (despite not being the highest bidder) on the promise that it would open a hub at ATL, but alas, neither it nor UA nor any other carrier wanted to go up against DL, who began shifting capacity from DFW to bulk ATL up even bigger.

Well TWA tried. It didn’t work out and then Valujet rose to prominence.

EBiafore99 wrote:

I think when you look at cities with multiple airports, the "second" airport came into existence because the "original" airport could not expand either terminals and/or runways (DCA - IAD, MDW - ORD come to mind, not sure, but maybe DAL - DFW). I don't think ATL necessarily has this issue, or am I wrong?

You're exactly right. ATL is currently building a 6th runway, but it recently abandoned a plan to build Concourse G, but instead will add 5 new much needed T gates by 2021.

Polot wrote:

ATL could really use another airport north of the city. Where have previous proposals been, expanding Peachtree airport?

Over the years, there have been proposals (some serious, some not) floated for commercial service at:

Charlie Brown Field
Peachtree DeKalb AIrport
Gwinnett County Airport
Dobbins Air Force Base
Paulding County Airport

I'm probably excluding something.

Polot wrote:

ATL could really use another airport north of the city. Where have previous proposals been, expanding Peachtree airport? I never really understood how that would work with that airport in a growing area and the CDC and IRS right next door (federal government probably not wanting to give up that property).

Tell that to the upper middle class folks who moved there, running away from Atlanta and will fight any efforts to put one near their homes. See LZU, c. 1994ish.
Also find a place that at this point is appropriate for putting a runway. Even if it hadn't already been developed with endless swaths of McMansions and cookie cutter suburbs, most of the topography in that area is rather hilly, which will drive up the cost of building the airport.

SDFguy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

ATL on the airport authority side is known for being one of the most corrupt airports in the United States. While operationally it runs fine, much of that is do to the airline(s) and not the airport authority. I can see why they want to pull it under the state's control and away from the corruption of the City, but that is going to be a tough battle to fight.

What complete and utter nonsense. You have no facts to back up your politically/racially based assertion of ATL being one of the most corrupt airports in the US.

I mean the US attorney's office is pursuing corruption charges against Atlanta airport mangers for things like:

Jackmont Hospitality, which operates restaurants including One Flew South on Concourse E, was founded by former Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson’s daughter and is led by Daniel Halpern, who was a co-chairman of Reed’s 2009 mayoral campaign. Hojeij’s Wassim Hojeij was a member of host committees for Reed campaign events, and he and relatives made campaign contributions to Reed.

Atlanta “spent about $1.7 million in outside legal work related to [the] firing” and it appears though the city agreed to a payout, the rest of the actual termination payment was made by a large developer who was also a donor to the then-Mayor. Three weeks later the developer got approval to build a new Intercontinental hotel at the airport. The developer also reportedly received $2 million in tax breaks from the city for another project, directed by the then-Mayor.

ATL is definitely not alone with being corrupt as numerous airports in the United States are known for this, but after working decades in the aviation industry your claim that my comment is "complete and utter nonsense" is laughable. Google Atlanta airport corruption and you will find many articles from throughout the years just like the one from 6 months ago linked below. To simply jump and say my comments are racially/politically charged is pretty bold.


https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... e-country/

https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--po ... ation-test



*Edit* Let me be clear, I am not saying the state should or shouldn't take over or the state taking over will make things more or less corrupt. I am just commenting on the current situation.

TheDBCooper wrote:

I can't imagine any Government institution succeed in running a commercial enterprise. Which, if any, government organisation are well-run and efficient?

Well the city of Atlanta is a government institution and they currently runs ATL. But the city of Atlanta is as corrupt as they come. When was the last time the had a decent and honest mayor? It seems like every one of them gets involved in some sort of criminal activity.

Fargo wrote:

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

Not to mention ORD and MDW ... or LAX/SNA/LGB/ONT/BUR co-existing.

Granted, ATL is a completely different dynamic, but I'm not so sure how a state-takeover of ATL helps lead the push for a second airport in Atlanta.

Polot wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Atlwarrior wrote:

United had its opportunity to expand in Atlanta when Eastern went of out of business. Delta, and the City of Atlanta don't support this- so it want happen.

EA went bust during a significant recession. Georgia and Atlanta tried everything they could to lure another carrier to fill the void — NW was awarded EA’s DCA assets (despite not being the highest bidder) on the promise that it would open a hub at ATL, but alas, neither it nor UA nor any other carrier wanted to go up against DL, who began shifting capacity from DFW to bulk ATL up even bigger.

Well TWA tried. It didn’t work out and then Valujet rose to prominence.

Results of early 1990s TW building a hub at ATL was about as predictable as those of Haggen acquiring all the grocery stores divested in the Albertsons-Safeway merger...

SonaSounds wrote:

SDFguy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

ATL on the airport authority side is known for being one of the most corrupt airports in the United States. While operationally it runs fine, much of that is do to the airline(s) and not the airport authority. I can see why they want to pull it under the state's control and away from the corruption of the City, but that is going to be a tough battle to fight.

What complete and utter nonsense. You have no facts to back up your politically/racially based assertion of ATL being one of the most corrupt airports in the US.

I mean the US attorney's office is pursuing corruption charges against Atlanta airport mangers for things like:

Jackmont Hospitality, which operates restaurants including One Flew South on Concourse E, was founded by former Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson’s daughter and is led by Daniel Halpern, who was a co-chairman of Reed’s 2009 mayoral campaign. Hojeij’s Wassim Hojeij was a member of host committees for Reed campaign events, and he and relatives made campaign contributions to Reed.

Atlanta “spent about $1.7 million in outside legal work related to [the] firing” and it appears though the city agreed to a payout, the rest of the actual termination payment was made by a large developer who was also a donor to the then-Mayor. Three weeks later the developer got approval to build a new Intercontinental hotel at the airport. The developer also reportedly received $2 million in tax breaks from the city for another project, directed by the then-Mayor.

ATL is definitely not alone with being corrupt as numerous airports in the United States are known for this, but after working decades in the aviation industry your claim that my comment is "complete and utter nonsense" is laughable. Google Atlanta airport corruption and you will find many articles from throughout the years just like the one from 6 months ago linked below. To simply jump and say my comments are racially/politically charged is pretty bold.


https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... e-country/

https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--po ... ation-test

Thanks for at least providing some links to back up that claim. Most people would just get defensive, so respect. I'm still not convinced that the state taking over would do anything other than pick different beneficiaries of said corruption though - the state of Georgia was ranked the most corrupt state government in the nation just a few years ago.

The best role of the state in this case is to clean up its own house, and then support policy to clean up corruption in Atlanta - not take over the airport and just redirect funding to different pockets.

https://publicintegrity.org/state-polit ... e-country/

YoungDon wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

SDFguy wrote:

What complete and utter nonsense. You have no facts to back up your politically/racially based assertion of ATL being one of the most corrupt airports in the US.

I mean the US attorney's office is pursuing corruption charges against Atlanta airport mangers for things like:

Jackmont Hospitality, which operates restaurants including One Flew South on Concourse E, was founded by former Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson’s daughter and is led by Daniel Halpern, who was a co-chairman of Reed’s 2009 mayoral campaign. Hojeij’s Wassim Hojeij was a member of host committees for Reed campaign events, and he and relatives made campaign contributions to Reed.

Atlanta “spent about $1.7 million in outside legal work related to [the] firing” and it appears though the city agreed to a payout, the rest of the actual termination payment was made by a large developer who was also a donor to the then-Mayor. Three weeks later the developer got approval to build a new Intercontinental hotel at the airport. The developer also reportedly received $2 million in tax breaks from the city for another project, directed by the then-Mayor.

ATL is definitely not alone with being corrupt as numerous airports in the United States are known for this, but after working decades in the aviation industry your claim that my comment is "complete and utter nonsense" is laughable. Google Atlanta airport corruption and you will find many articles from throughout the years just like the one from 6 months ago linked below. To simply jump and say my comments are racially/politically charged is pretty bold.


https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... e-country/

https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--po ... ation-test

Thanks for at least providing some links to back up that claim. Most people would just get defensive, so respect. I'm still not convinced that the state taking over would do anything other than pick different beneficiaries of said corruption though - the state of Georgia was ranked the most corrupt state government in the nation just a few years ago.

The best role of the state in this case is to clean up its own house, and then support policy to clean up corruption in Atlanta - not take over the airport and just redirect funding to different pockets.

https://publicintegrity.org/state-polit ... e-country/

I completely agree with you and had edited my previous post while you must have been typing your response to include the following:

*Edit* Let me be clear, I am not saying the state should or shouldn't take over or the state taking over will make things more or less corrupt. I am just commenting on the current situation.

litz wrote:

Another key, critical, point that will scuttle this effort : Delta has primary right of refusal to any change in ownership of the airport.

It's written into their lease, which was just renewed for another 30 years.

If its ownership changes by a law or legal action, they are going to have an uphill battle. Made harder by that very clause since its hard to argue its an independent organisation if Delta literally controls its ownership.

compensateme wrote:

...who began shifting capacity from DFW to bulk ATL up even bigger.

I thought DL bailing on DFW was a retrenchment, not a move made from a position of strength.

SonaSounds wrote:

ATL on the airport authority side is known for being one of the most corrupt airports in the United States. While operationally it runs fine, much of that is do to the airline(s) and not the airport authority. I can see why they want to pull it under the state's control and away from the corruption of the City, but that is going to be a tough battle to fight.

Replace one governmental entity with another one? Why not privatize? STL is heading that way. Shoot, sell Hartsfield to DL!

Fargo wrote:

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Yet DFW and DAL coexist just fine.

AA hub in Dallas is half the size of the hub Delta has in Atlanta. They don't even exist in the same universe. Delta can route traffic through Altanta that economically would be completely impossible if it was half the size it is today. If you open up a 2nd airport what inevitably will happen is that competition on high margin routes will force Delta to lower fares on those money making routes, given the size of Deltas hub that means a lot of low margin routes will be affected, and many of them will simply close down, they can't simply exist without the high margin routes being high margin routes. Because they already run on low margins, when Delta drop those routes, no other airlines will pick them up and the airport as a result will start losing traffic.

The questiong you should ask is not why it works in Dallas with 2 airports but why Deltas hub in Atlanta is 2 times the size of AA hub in Dallas.

TTailedTiger wrote:

TheDBCooper wrote:

I can't imagine any Government institution succeed in running a commercial enterprise. Which, if any, government organisation are well-run and efficient?

Well the city of Atlanta is a government institution and they currently runs ATL. But the city of Atlanta is as corrupt as they come. When was the last time the had a decent and honest mayor? It seems like every one of them gets involved in some sort of criminal activity.

When's the last time Chicago, New York, or D.C. had an honest mayor? At least the mayor of Atlanta has never dug X's into an airport runway.

I have absolutely zero faith the state of Georgia would be any more honest in running the airport. After all, our current governor utlized his role as secretary of state to steer his own gubernatorial election, and our current house speaker is abusing his position to delay court cases against his own clients.

Begues wrote:

The monopoly is the reason it is the largest airport in the world. You take that away and the airport will lose traffic to better placed alternatives. I mean who in their right mind want to fly for 2-3 hours extra just because Delta push all their traffic through ATL. If the monopoly goes away you will se a 2-3 year spike in traffic growth and then Delta will start to shut down low margin routes by their dossens and they will not be taken up by other airlines.

Atlanta is not only the Air transport junction of the state but the shipping junction as well.. I had the occasion to visit my Daughter there recently. She lives in Conyers GA out on I-20 east of Atlanta. going out to her housed I counted 20-30 Trucking hubs and driving into the city I saw another 20-30 Trucking hubs tied to CSX rail Road and Air freight companies operating in and Around Atlanta. I-20. I- 85, I-75 all cross at or near ATL. so it was by no mistake ATL is where it IS. Does the airport need to be expanded to be less Delta Centric? Yes ! But Delta is a monster that Atlanta created. And? They Like that Monster!! Trying now to decapitate Delta? Is a shaky move at best. Though I doubt Delta could wield the power they hold over Atlanta anywhere else. Which is why I think they closed their hub at DFW.

SDFguy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

ATL on the airport authority side is known for being one of the most corrupt airports in the United States. While operationally it runs fine, much of that is do to the airline(s) and not the airport authority. I can see why they want to pull it under the state's control and away from the corruption of the City, but that is going to be a tough battle to fight.

What complete and utter nonsense. You have no facts to back up your politically/racially based assertion of ATL being one of the most corrupt airports in the US.

https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... e-country/

https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt--po ... zML5R1PbP/

https://www.ajc.com/business/atlanta-ma ... Q6UiERYEI/

The airport is currently under federal investigation for misappropriating funds and rigging the system for Kasim Reed's buddies to win contracts for every part of the airport. I think the state could do a better a job of running it but it will never happen because Atlanta corruption is only matched by Chicago.

It is foolish to think that any well-deserved criticism is racist. I have heard anecdotally that The Atlanta Airport Authority is only matched by third world airports when it comes to corruption.

How much is O&D (which is what other airlines would benefit of) and how much is connections? (what my guess is DL mostly does)? if you are aiming for the former, it sounds ludicrous to need a takeover and specially a second airport like some folks have said on here!

ctrabs0114 wrote:

Not to mention ORD and MDW ... or LAX/SNA/LGB/ONT/BUR co-existing.

Granted, ATL is a completely different dynamic, but I'm not so sure how a state-takeover of ATL helps lead the push for a second airport in Atlanta.

I mentioned DFW/DAL because AA at DFW is the next closest thing to DL at ATL size wise.

And no, the state takeover will not help, it will actually make things worse by putting more red tape in place. If they really want a second airport (and I'm honestly not so sure Atlanta needs one) the best thing for them to do would be to void all existing laws/agreements that guarantee the monopoly of ATL/DL and then work from there.

Begues wrote:

AA hub in Dallas is half the size of the hub Delta has in Atlanta. They don't even exist in the same universe.

Not quite. DL at ATL is just over 1,000 flights whereas AA at DFW will be over 900 by summer. The gap is shrinking fast. ATL certainly has an advantage passenger number wise, but ATL will be facing major expansion constraints in the coming years whereas DFW has tons of room to expand. DFW is going to significantly close the gap passenger wise with ATL over the course of the next two decades.

Begues wrote:

Delta can route traffic through Atlanta that economically would be completely impossible if it was half the size it is today.

Not sure what you are getting at, but are you saying a second airport would lead to ATL being half the size it is today? Yeah right. DL could still be DL at ATL while there could be a MDW/DAL/HOU-style airport for discount carriers. How would it be economically impossible for DL to route traffic from smaller markets that the discount carriers likely wouldn't even serve to begin with?

Begues wrote:

If you open up a 2nd airport what inevitably will happen is that competition on high margin routes will force Delta to lower fares on those money making routes, given the size of Deltas hub that means a lot of low margin routes will be affected, and many of them will simply close down, they can't simply exist without the high margin routes being high margin routes. Because they already run on low margins, when Delta drop those routes, no other airlines will pick them up and the airport as a result will start losing traffic.

This has been proven false in DFW. AA flies many high margin routes (in some cases, on regional jets with worse CASM than DL) and often faces competition from WN, yet, DFW is AA's bread and butter. Yes, DFW has a bit more O&D, but not significantly so, DFW and DAL are primarily connecting airports. Again, similar to my above question, what routes are you referring to that would be discontinued if a second airport opened? You realize carriers like WN fly large 737's that can't serve smaller markets, I doubt they are going to start cutting a bunch of smaller markets just because they get their feelings hurt because WN, F9, G4, etc, set up shop at a hypothetical second airport across town.

Begues wrote:

The question you should ask is not why it works in Dallas with 2 airports but why Deltas hub in Atlanta is 2 times the size of AA hub in Dallas.

DL has the political clout to block a second airport from being built because they are afraid of competition, plain and simple. I'm not even necessarily for a second Atlanta airport, but there is no logical reason why there can't be one other than the fact DL wants their monopoly protected.