Hello everyone.
I was a few days ago in Slovakia and Hungary. I go there often, as well as to Austria. I don't understand the need of having airports both in BTS and VIE, specially when Slovakia has no airline and BTS is a pretty small airport. BUD is in a similar situation, having lost MA and getting today mostly low cost flights.
VIE has a big airport, which they are willing to expand (building a parallel runway to 11/29).
What's your take on building a Central European Airport, exactly in the border of the three countries, next to the city of Györ (Hungary).
There is enough room for building a large airport (as big as CDG), and building a fast rail to all three capital cities wouldn't be difficult. Highways are already there. It would be (straight line) 60km away from downtown Vienna, 14km from Bratislava downtown, and 150km from Budapest.
We can add a few more places not far away, like Brno (160km away), Czech's 2nd largest city.

It is just my imagination. What do you think?
Old airports can often be reutilised on some other projects...

Just my thoughts! Waiting for your comments
Eielef @IAR

And who would manage the airport?
Who would pay for it and who would ripe the profits?
Moreover, how do they manage bilateral with non EU Countries?
Austria, Slovakia and Hungary are not three provinces of the same state.
They are three sovereign States with different systems and languages.
Hungary doesn´t even have the Euro.

Maybe in the future, when the European Union will be more than just an immense set of rules and regulations with little common transnational feeling than we could see common european projects that take advantage of Geography and don´t consider limited national interests.

This will not work out. While the EU as such may look like a uniform country, in reality it is split into the individual countries which mind their own business and as such also primarily take care of their own often nationalistic interests.

Steman already pinpointed some of the reasons why this would not work out. Especially from Budapest they would not have a single reason to agree to it, especially if BUD is located just at the outskirts of Budapest and conveniently reachable, has no capacity constraints, has a good runway system with enough capacity and has space to grow. Why on earth would they just scrap such an airport, with immense value already in place?

Same would apply to Vienna, that airport has invested massive amounts of money in infrastructure and there is no reason they would scrap that value in favor of building an airport which most likely would not even be in Austria. They seem to be sooner or later to be able to build the 3rd runway, which will give them enough capacity for another 50 years at least.

Last not least, BTS is growing rapidly as the low cost hub for Vienna and main airport for Slovakia. Growth in january and february was at 44% and 47% respectively in these months, cargo growth at 35% year on year, so the airport seems to have found their market position under the current managment. Wizz will start flights by end of this month and there is more to come. Sure its never going to catch up with the big brothers in VIE and BUD, but it has a place within the catchment area, able to offer lower costs, no slot constrains and avaiable traffic rights.

So basically, you need to consider VIE and BTS as one metro area with two airports, BUD is just too far away to fit into the metro/catchment area. All 3 airports have their unique market proposition and cater for different target groups/catchments.

Well, you have a good example with the Euroairport at Mulhouse/Basel/Freiburg.
Different languages, and different currencies. It worked, didn't it?
This would be a massive airport, and is just an idea in my mind.
I mean, the offer of flights to most of these airports is pretty limited, as for instance no ULH flights, and some long haul like to the US by OS, or to DXB/DOH/IST/AUH from VIE/BUD, and eventually some smaller traffic to Asia. Thats most of it.
And make a fast train to this new airport will be better than the current connections to both Schwechat and Ferihegy (never been to Ivanka, just by car).

Quoting eielef (Reply 3): This would be a massive airport,

And who would fill it?
Ryanair? Austrian Airlines?
To make a massive airport work you need a massive airline to use it as hub.
See FRA with LH, CDG with AF, LHR with BA just to stay in Europe.

You don´t just build a massive airport in the middle of nowhere just because you
have an empty patch of land and is located close to the border with three countries.

Vienna IS the Central European Airport. That's not going to change soon.

Quoting eielef (Reply 3): Well, you have a good example with the Euroairport at Mulhouse/Basel/Freiburg.

That airport has been already existant and just fit the role of serving multiple countries as it expanded.

You talk about basically shutting down 3 large airports and building a completely new one. Not to speak of the fact that the distances in BSL are much shorter to the respective cities - BSL to Mulhouse is just 30km, BSL to Freiburg is about 70km, whereas VIE to BUD is about 250 km.

VIE obviously is very close to BTS, the distance is just about 50km and on highway you can get the distance in about 30 minutes. However VIE in fact already is the airport not only for Bratislava, but for large parts of Slovakia, Hungary and Czech republic. Its about 2 million PAX just out of Slovakia which use VIE as their departing/arriving airport annualy. I can tell you that our government would be more than happy to get more of this pax to depart back from BTS, as it would mean more revenue for the home airport, more jobs and that means more taxes for the state.

And that just adds to the issue, as if the airport would be located e.g. in Hungary, Hungary would reap most benefits of the airport. If it would be in Austria, it would be Austria to benefit. So there is really no way to agree on such a thing as long all 3 airports are able to grow and have capacities to spare.

Quoting eielef (Thread starter): What's your take on building a Central European Airport, exactly in the border of the three countries, next to the city of Györ (Hungary).

Why bother when VIE already exists and you stated, they are willing to expand it, and it can draw not only from Bratislava and Budapest but also from Eastern Austria and Southeastern Czech Republic?

Quoting JimJupiter (Reply 5): Vienna IS the Central European Airport. That's not going to change soon.

I'd argue that MUC is the Central European airport with VIE playing more the role of an Eastern European gateway.

You need to look at things from a historical perspective. The fact that you can quickly and easily move between Austria, Hungary and Slovakia is a (relatively) recent development. Ten years ago, there were border controls. 25 years ago, Slovakians and Hungarians needed visas for Austria. The open borders under the Schengen system would make a project such as yours possible, but they have not been in place for very long (and, arguably, they are under threat during the current refugee crisis).

VIE is currently taking the place of the hub you propose, simply because it was the biggest of the three airports (and has the largest population base within its immediate catchment area, and the wealthiest metro area of the three). The current arrangement is working OK, so people are not really feeling any need to fix what is not broken.

Quoting JimJupiter (Reply 5): Vienna IS the Central European Airport. That's not going to change soon.

Since 2005 or so MUC is the Central European Airport. VIE is the airport of Vienna and Bratislava.

[Edited 2016-03-04 06:47:10]

The most central Airport in Europe is FRA since it is the closest to the demographic as well as geographic center of Europe. These are about 50 km to the east of FRA.

Quoting eielef (Thread starter): and 150km from Budapest.

That is a huge distance from the capital, no matter how fast the airport train is or how many motorways there are.
I do not know the situation in BTS, however both VIE and BUD has been achieving rmassive growth recently in terms of passenger number (BUD over 10mn in 2015). I think these airports get by on their own, no need to "consolidate" them.

Yes, I bet the Hungarians are DYING to give up their main national airport and schlep two hours to the border just so that they can share an airport with Slovakia.

This scheme is already bizarre and inconceivable as a mere thought exercise, and would only work in an alternate reality in which the European Union, Hungary, Slovakia the Czech Republic, airline economics and international relations as a whole are completely different from their current reality and possibly run by scentient unicorns.

Lot's of negativity to this suggestion, based on no foundation. Who will manage it? The airport authority. Who will ripe the profits? The airport authirity. Three different languages? Come on, this is Europe. People have no trouble communicating.

As an example, look at Basel Europort. Same situation as described by the OP. It works fine.

Who will serve it? Everyone who serves Vienna, Budapest and Bratislava today.

Do I think it's a good idea? Not necessarily now, but maybe sometime in the future. The Austrians don't have any incentive to close their airport.

But constructing problems out of thin air is not fruitful.

I can't see what the problem is with VIE and BTS.

They are complementary. BTS clearly works as a "secondary airport" to VIE (Ryanair, Pobeda, flyDubai...). Not very different to BRU or CRL, for instance.

Also the fact that Bratislava is a capital makes some routes work "by default", like BRU (European institutions) with FR.

Quoting steman (Reply 1): And who would manage the airport? Who would pay for it and who would ripe the profits? Moreover, how do they manage bilateral with non EU Countries? Austria, Slovakia and Hungary are not three provinces of the same state. They are three sovereign States with different systems and languages. Hungary doesn´t even have the Euro.

That does not seem a big problem at Basel. With France, Switzerland and Germany.

Quoting JetBuddy (Reply 13): Lot's of negativity to this suggestion, based on no foundation.

I don't think it's negativity just to question the feasibility of a project of this nature, nor to weigh the pro's and con's.

Honestly, Is there really much purpose in decommissioning three established fully-functional airports, and spending an enormous amount of money to build a new airport that is located slightly more centrally to three cities?

Maybe I am missing something but by this logic why not decommission FRA, MUC, HAM, TXL and create a new mega airport at Eisenach with high-seed rail going out in all directions?

Why would you concentrate everything on one airport if you can spread it over multiple airports? VIE and BTS may be close to each other, but that shouldn't be a problem. Yes, they do serve the same area but each in a different way. BUD is further away so I won't even mention it. And there are more airports that are close to each other. Let the airlines choose between them. Some might prefer one airport, some the other. That's the way it works.

Building a whole new airport to replace several functional profitable airports would be just a waste of money. Better leave things the way they are.

Well, speak in 10 years, for instance, all is saturated, you need more space you can't find anywhere. Could we then discuss this topic?
I was recently in Budapest willing to fly to Moscow and the flights from BUD were twice the price of flying from VIE (as BUD has only flights from SU, while VIE has more options), so had to take a 3 hours long bus (going from budapest downtown to VIE Airport). If it was all concentrated in one city, it would give all parts the best options...
And eventually, things tend to grow much faster than expected.

The idea of having one megaairport in London has been in mind for the last 30 years, and though it has not been realised, it would be certainly a better idea that maintaining not one but SIX airports (if we count SOU as a London Airport).
See the same runways being shared by BA newest A380 a smallest turboprops going to smaller cities in the UK Islands or in northern France, e.g.
Connecting at on a same place, just having an infrastructure in one place, all airline offices in the same place, all rail on one same place, all pollution, no night curfews, etc. That would, after 10 years or so, make so much profit I doubt it won't be a good idea.
I don't think the GDP together of this three capital cities (or even of these three countries) is as big as the one in southeastern UK, but is not something poor as well.
If not done in the border, do it somewhere not so far, the city of Györ seemed better and more in the middle, being just 100km away from BUD, and same distance from VIE and BTS. Just thought, geographically, it was nicer to do it just in the border.

There have been multiple attempts to make airports being shared by two countries. For instance AQJ/ETH were supposed to be built together, but they haven't (albeit having big political differences between Jordan and Israel). Same as Maastricht/Aachen which could include as well as people from Liege in Belgium.

Idea is having less airports more sophisticated each. As they tried, problems beside, with Berlin International closing two (almost three) functioning airports (TXL and THF), reusing a bit of another one (SXF) and building a massive airport (BER).
Why wasn't it better just to have three? Don't know, and still don't understand why the project has been so poorly done (specially by Germans), but the idea (as having a unique London Airport) I found it brilliant.
Many important cities have just one airport, and works fine with them. Call it Madrid for instance. You'll see the same runways being shared by IB heavy A346 with FR B738s with some ATR42s or even smaller planes (though no private aviation here). And this airport was built almost 80 years ago). Same goes with Amsterdam, Munich or Frankfurt (I don't consider HHN an airport for Frankfurt).
Brussels, having two airports, non is as good as AMS or MAD. Even we could say the same of Rome with FCO and CIA, or Milan with MXP and LIN.
Even the fastest growing airports are in cities where there is mostly one. Think of HKG, SIN, SYD, AKL, MEX...

You continue peddling your "solution" in search of a problem. There is zero need to contemplate what you are suggesting, and if there was any need in the first place, your scenario would cause far, far more problems than it would fix.

The fact that you chose to take a three hour long bus ride in order to save yourself some money in no way even remotely contributes to the merits of your "concept".

Quoting eielef (Reply 18): I was recently in Budapest willing to fly to Moscow and the flights from BUD were twice the price of flying from VIE (as BUD has only flights from SU, while VIE has more options), so had to take a 3 hours long bus (going from budapest downtown to VIE Airport). If it was all concentrated in one city, it would give all parts the best options...

Or the worst options, that's just how you see things. If you had been in Vienna instead of Budapest, you would have had those cheaper flights closeby and then you wouldn't want to have to travel all the way to an airport far away from the city of Vienna just because it's being shared with other cities.

Quoting eielef (Reply 18): The idea of having one megaairport in London has been in mind for the last 30 years, and though it has not been realised, it would be certainly a better idea that maintaining not one but SIX airports (if we count SOU as a London Airport).

Still there are strong voices against that plan as well. Why would it certainly be better? Better for who? Larger is NOT always better, some airlines (FR for example) prefer to fly to smaller airports that often got lower landing fees. That's why they prefer STN over LHR. I say, let the airlines have that choice! Let the airports compete against each other.

Quoting eielef (Reply 18): Same as Maastricht/Aachen which could include as well as people from Liege in Belgium.

That's a different case. That airport has long had the name Maastricht Airport, only later it was renamed Maastricht Aachen Airport because Aachen was also close. Liege has it's own airport, wich is closeby but not the same. Same goes for RTM, wich always was just Rotterdam Airport. Only recently it was renamed Rotterdam The Hague Airport.

Quoting eielef (Reply 18): Call it Madrid for instance. You'll see the same runways being shared by IB heavy A346 with FR B738s with some ATR42s or even smaller planes (though no private aviation here). And this airport was built almost 80 years ago). Same goes with Amsterdam, Munich or Frankfurt (I don't consider HHN an airport for Frankfurt).

The only reason FR uses MAD is because there's no alternative airport available they can use. If there was, they might have used that. If Torrejon Airbase would be open for civilian air traffic, nothing would stop them from flying there and call it Madrid.

The other cities you mention are all served by smaller airports further away. You already mentioned HHN, wich is just as good as FRA because there's a good bus connection available between the city and the airport. Same goes for AMS (EIN), MUC (FMM), DUS (NRN), OSL (RYG), WAW (WMI), etc. Some of these airports are closer to the city centers than your proposed joined VIE-BTS-BUD airport.

Quoting eielef (Reply 18): Brussels, having two airports, non is as good as AMS or MAD. Even we could say the same of Rome with FCO and CIA, or Milan with MXP and LIN.

That depends on your definition of "good". Personally I find BGY (also an alternative airport for Milan) a very convenient airport. And eventough AMS is my home airport I prefer not to fly from there, I think it's too large. If I can I prefer to fly from the smaller and more convenient airports like EIN or NRN.

In real estate there are three main reasons to select a site for a Business: Location, Location and Location.

An Airport is a Business, but also a part of local infrastructure. Local means it has to be where the customers are. If people had to drive 150 km to reach "their" Airport, those who Need an Airport for Business would move towards the Airport Location. A new City would develope there while the original place some 150 km away would become less and less important.

Btw talking about VIE - BTS - BUD, I just found out something interesting regarding Wizzair

Wizzair is ultimately a Hungarian company and BUD is their largest base. They have no presence at VIE (which is somehow understandable due to their low-cost nature and VIE being a major airport). However they only have a single route in BTS (SKP).

I can understand that relations (notably VFR) between Slovakia and the rest of Eastern Europe (other than neighbouring countries like Czech Republic or Hungary where trips are made by car/train) remain weak. However I had always thought that Vienna has strong business and VFR links with most of Eastern Europe.

So why no more Wizzair at BTS targeting those Vienna-bound passengers? Or are they already travelling to BUD to fly from there?

With the current ultra right politics (ÖVP,Orban,...) I find it more likely that frontiers will be closed and citizens forced to use local airports than any chance of cooperation. Maybe in some decades when there is an 400km/h railway network all over Europe such a project has a chance.

Quoting eielef (Reply 18): I was recently in Budapest willing to fly to Moscow and the flights from BUD were twice the price of flying from VIE (as BUD has only flights from SU, while VIE has more options),

Wizzair also operates direct BUD-VKO and the fares are reasonably priced in most cases.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 22): So why no more Wizzair at BTS targeting those Vienna-bound passengers? Or are they already travelling to BUD to fly from there?

There have been rumors about WizzAir launching flights from Győr (QGY, the city actually mentioned by OP) for some time by now, however it has not happened yet. Should that occur, those flights will definitely attract passengers who would otherwise fly from VIE or BTS.

Quoting AviatorW6 (Reply 24): Wizzair also operates direct BUD-VKO and the fares are reasonably priced in most cases.

Pobeda also flies VKO-BTS.

Who would have the legal / police authority ?

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 22): Btw talking about VIE - BTS - BUD, I just found out something interesting regarding Wizzair Wizzair is ultimately a Hungarian company and BUD is their largest base. They have no presence at VIE (which is somehow understandable due to their low-cost nature and VIE being a major airport). However they only have a single route in BTS (SKP). I can understand that relations (notably VFR) between Slovakia and the rest of Eastern Europe (other than neighbouring countries like Czech Republic or Hungary where trips are made by car/train) remain weak. However I had always thought that Vienna has strong business and VFR links with most of Eastern Europe. So why no more Wizzair at BTS targeting those Vienna-bound passengers? Or are they already travelling to BUD to fly from there?

I guess that's because FR already flies out of BTS and W6 isn't really well known in Vienna, so those low-cost passengers for Vienna all fly FR out of BTS. They don't travel to BUD to get a W6 flight, they don't fly W6 at all.

You always thought Vienna had strong links with Eastern Europe? I guess you thought wrong, those links are only very weak.

Quoting AviatorW6 (Reply 25): There have been rumors about WizzAir launching flights from Győr (QGY, the city actually mentioned by OP) for some time by now, however it has not happened yet. Should that occur, those flights will definitely attract passengers who would otherwise fly from VIE or BTS.

I doubt it, it's too far away. Maybe with good bus connections they can get some passengers from that area, but not much. BTS is the low-cost airport for Vienna and it's mostly served by FR.

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 28): You always thought Vienna had strong links with Eastern Europe? I guess you thought wrong, those links are only very weak.

I think I am not   There is also a lot of Balkan immigration to Austria... maybe the "issue" is that Austria is geographically too close to the former Yugoslavia and that people just drive to their home countries.

https://www.wien.gv.at/english/politics/international/competition/hub.html

Quote: Vienna as hub for Eastern und South-Eastern Europe In the 1980s the City of Vienna began to establish representative offices abroad, among others in eleven neighbouring countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The fall of the iron curtain and the enlargement of the European Union to the east have put Vienna into the centre of Europe not only from a geographical but in particular also from a political and economic point of view. Vienna is internationally renowned as the ideal location to set up business contacts with Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/1293a...4-5e85-11e3-8621-00144feabdc0.html

Quote: Vienna, the city where east meets west It is not just the legacy of the Habsburg empire, which at its peak covered much of central, eastern and southeastern Europe, that explains Vienna’s status as a hub for the region. Geography has also smiled on the former imperial city. Located about 50km from Bratislava in Slovakia, some 200km from Budapest in Hungary and 250km from the Czech capital, Prague, Vienna is at the heart of a region of 300m people within an 800km radius. “Vienna is further east than Prague, Ljubljana or Zagreb,” says Peter Brezinschek, chief analyst at Raiffeisen Bank International, the banking group. “It is a perfect base from which to reach central and eastern Europe.".

I have only one idea - a case study on Montreal-Mirabel  

Quoting eielef (Reply 18): Many important cities have just one airport, and works fine with them.

Has Buenos Aires decided to close Newbery yet?   

Quoting eielef (Reply 18): Well, speak in 10 years, for instance, all is saturated, you need more space you can't find anywhere. Could we then discuss this topic?

Let's see... there's practical physical cap of 100 million pax per year for a single airport... only ATL breaks that... Now let's see...
VIE is about 23 million pax. BUD is about 11 million and BTS is about 1.5 million... Let's double all those numbers...
VIE becomes 46 million, BUD becomes 22 million, and BTS becomes 3 million... Will it reach those numbers in 10 years? Doubt it.
Now, "need more space" eh?
Dude, Jakarta has 56 million pax on 2 runways. IST pumps out 61 million on effectively 2 runways (yes it has 3, but capacity wise it's as good as 2 runways due to layout).
VIE has enough space and can accept a lot more with the 2nd runway, and BUD has a lot of space.
Why make 1 big airport far from each, and then make the constraint happen faster?
Say the double numbers happen.... 46 22 3 = 71 million... that's a congested airport already and you're going to have to look at building a new one...

Sorry, your idea is not something that's practical.

Quoting PatrickZ80 (Reply 20): The only reason FR uses MAD is because there's no alternative airport available they can use. If there was, they might have used that. If Torrejon Airbase would be open for civilian air traffic, nothing would stop them from flying there and call it Madrid.

LOL! The same airport that flies to Barcelona (Girona) airport? Barcelona (Reus) is closer :P

Quoting eielef (Reply 18): The idea of having one megaairport in London has been in mind for the last 30 years, and though it has not been realised, it would be certainly a better idea that maintaining not one but SIX airports (if we count SOU as a London Airport).

SOU is Southampton... Did you mean SEN (Southend)?
Let's see 1 mega-airport in London?
LHR is 74 million-ish and LGW is 41 million-ish, add Stansted's 20 million, Luton's 10 million, LCY's 4 million and SEN's 1 millon, a single mega airport is 160 million pax per year? You know it's going to be impossible... it'll probably lose about 10-20 million to other airports as you centralize London in 1 location... it's still 140-150 million pax... and a significant majority will be O&D pax... it's going to be a logistical challenge just to get passengers and workers to and from the airport let alone processing those 140 million passengers. (ATL is the only airport over 100 million passengers a year, and that's mostly transfer traffic).
What London needs is ability to grow at any of the airports. LHR's 3rd runway is a perpetual political nightmare... LGW needs additional capacity to allow for growth for London's traffic.
Each covers a niche... LCY has it's own attraction and benefit to London... want to cut that away?