Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
rdwelch
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:26 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 49):
Quoting Rdwelch (Reply 48):
I thought someone would have done MIA-FLL by now.

Why? FLL sees 20M+ passengers a year, has more domestic airlines, and carriers more domestic passengers and domestic O&D than Miami does.

Then we'll do it the other way around. One has to be bigger than the other. Think outside the box.

Gus.
They say I have ADD, but they don't understand..Oh look! A chicken!
 
gilesdavies
Posts: 2331
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:51 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:27 am

How about Luton (LTN)?

Luton has to compete against three far larger airports in the London area, with better facilities...

Where Luton handles 9.5 million passengers a year, Stansted 26 miles down the road handles 22+ million and airport like LGW and LHR handle one or two more passengers than that!

Also LTN does not have the financial might to attract airlines or build shiney new facilities like LHR, LGW or STN which are all owned by BAA (British Airports Authority).
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6649
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:30 am

DTW: YIP, and DET. Boths within 10 miles of Metro. I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but SEA and BFI. The approach for Sea-Tac is right over Boeing Field/King County International. BFI doesn't have any pax service with the exception of San Juan Airlines or Kenmore Air. City Airport in Detroit has limited service to CLE with some upstart regional in a few months. while YIP is a freight hub for Zantop, USAJet, and TransCon Freight.
Made from jets!
 
User avatar
N62NA
Posts: 4496
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 2:50 am

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 22):
Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

Add GRQ (Groningen), the major city in the eastern part of The Netherlands to the AMS factor. You can't even get a connecting flight from AMS to Groningen.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26638
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:06 am

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 3):
YOW could definately have more traffic if it werent for YUL or YYZ.

It is entirely too far from YOW to YYZ to ever think people would drive that, but YUL is a definate alternate. If YMX had been successful, that would have really killed YOW

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 3):
Same thing goes for YEG, with YYC so close.

So close? That is like saying New York is close to Boston. It is 3 hours from Edmonton to Calgary

Quoting Flamedude707 (Reply 6):
Does SJC-SFO count?

They are really and truly in the same metro area and the cities are well connected by both direct freeways and public transportation. Further, SFO is actually closer to San Jose than the San Francisco proper, making it a rather easy drive/train ride.

Quoting MUCflieger (Reply 10):
MHG - FRA

Mannheim's longest runway is under 4000 feet, that hinders it more than anything

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 17):
San Jose to San Francisco is a long drive and with the high-tech industry next door, domestic, and even international, service works fine on it's own.

A long drive? It is less than an hour. Further, SJC has seen a significant pull down in service, particularly from AA while SFO still benefits from being a major international and domestic gateway with a major hub presence

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 17):
While AA has/will close SJC-NRT, it has been a route that has proved well for AA and one that they wouldn't even try at SFO, let alone their one flight a day at LAX.

The reason they wouldn't try at SFO is because they would lose, and lose bad, to United. Slots and fleet capacity have kept them off a second LAX flight, though that may come now

Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 51):
Also LTN does not have the financial might to attract airlines or build shiney new facilities like LHR, LGW or STN which are all owned by BAA (British Airports Authority).

Again, runway length and a truly crappy airfield design (as the English seem to do frequently, unfortunately) are the main culprits there.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:26 am

Quoting Flycmh2009 (Reply 34):
How about Ohio? Does anyone here think that CMH and DAY are being held back by the hubs at CVG and CLE. There's a strong market for a lot of places out of Columbus. The city has many worldwide and nationally known organizations that could benefit from increased service I'm sure.

I think if DL had to make the choice over again 25 years after the fact they would have gone for a hub at CMH, or IND over CVG. Both CMH and IND have significantly higher O&D numbers than CVG which explains why WN, F9, B6 or other LCCs haven't jumped into the fray there. As for DAY, I think they just look at being the home of the Wright Brothers thinking they should be something bigger.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:32 am

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 52):
I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but SEA and BFI. The approach for Sea-Tac is right over Boeing Field/King County International. BFI doesn't have any pax service with the exception of San Juan Airlines or Kenmore Air.

Last year WN tried a "go around" the Port Authority of Seattle and tried to get exclusive service into BFI that made AS, UA, AA, NW and DL have a major  hissyfit ! The administration of King County (that oversees BFI) said no to WN. SEA-TAC sided with the local NIMBY's on that one!
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
supa7E7
Posts: 1360
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2004 2:05 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:32 am

FLL is a big airport but it's in MIA's shadow.

LGA is an important airport in JFK's shadow.

Then there's Gatwick, rarely celebrated but a very major airport in a big shadow (LHR).
"Who's to say spaceships aren't fine art?" - Phil Lesh
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 5933
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:38 am

Albuquerque and Santa Fe. However, I have heard a rumor in a past thread that Delta Connection (SkyWest) wants to start service to Santa Fe from Salt Lake City, and this could give new life to the Santa Fe airport.
 
AirTranTUS
Posts: 3313
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:12 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:09 am

I'll disagree on the TUS-PHX pair. UA is cancelling its TUS-PHX-IAD route in favor of having one nonstop to IAD from both cities. UA will serve TUS and PHX with one nonstop daily from IAD. PHX will be a A320 and TUS a A319. PHX does have more capacity from the double daily HP/US PHX-IAD flights, but UA will have the same amount of flights to both cities from IAD. TUS is also getting service from B6 to JFK starting next month. TUS is not the little airport it used to be.
I love ASO!
 
stirling
Posts: 3896
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:31 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 54):
Again, runway length and a truly crappy airfield design (as the English seem to do frequently, unfortunately) are the main culprits there.

True. Luton has to be my least favorite airport ever....which is saying alot when one considers LHR right down the road.

There is a difference between being in someone's shadow, and the inability to compete.

If Luton had wonderful motorway access, a terminal design that made just a moderate amount of sense, a regional county commission oversight to address the issue of runway expansion crossing jurisdictions, then maybe an argument could be made of Luton not getting the service it deserves because of being cast in the shadow of LHR/LGW.
But.
Facing facts, Luton is horrible.
Delete this User
 
ONTFlyer
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 2:49 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:32 am

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 17):
In regards to SCK, AA has service and if I'm correct so will Mexicana

Perhaps you were thinking of G4 and later this year, Aeromexico to Guadalajara and Morelia??
Doin' just fine thanks...
 
FATFlyer
Posts: 5108
Joined: Fri May 18, 2001 4:12 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:14 am

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 17):
In regards to SCK, AA has service and if I'm correct so will Mexicana.



Quoting ONTFlyer (Reply 61):
Perhaps you were thinking of G4 and later this year, Aeromexico to Guadalajara and Morelia??

AM at Stockton (SCK) does not look like it will happen any time soon. SCK has not been able to get permission to open a FIS.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
 
N1120A
Posts: 26638
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:22 am

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 57):
LGA is an important airport in JFK's shadow.

I disagree here. In fact, before jetBlue, JFK was in La Guardia's shadow in many ways.

Quoting ONTFlyer (Reply 61):
Quoting UA777222 (Reply 17):
In regards to SCK, AA has service and if I'm correct so will Mexicana

Perhaps you were thinking of G4 and later this year, Aeromexico to Guadalajara and Morelia??

No major carrier has service to Stockton. Only Allegiant (which is not a major carrier).
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
gkirk
Posts: 23429
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:24 am

Prestwick --> Glasgow
Durham Tees Valley --> Newcastle
Leeds/Bradford & Liverpool --> Manchester
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
Tom12
Posts: 1050
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 7:29 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:56 am

Glasgow (GLA) pretty much took the majority of service from Prestwick (PIK).

PIK gets a ot of 747 cargo traffic now which ispretty cool.

Tom
"Per noctem volamus" - Royal Air Force Bomber Squadron IX
 
b6pilot2b
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:22 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:04 am

JFK/LGA/EWR vs FRG/ISP
 
yow
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:47 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:12 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 54):
It is entirely too far from YOW to YYZ to ever think people would drive that, but YUL is a definate alternate. If YMX had been successful, that would have really killed YOW

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 3):
Same thing goes for YEG, with YYC so close.

So close? That is like saying New York is close to Boston. It is 3 hours from Edmonton to Calgary

YOW is only a 40 plane ride to YUL and 1hr to YYZ, while YEG is only 45 mins from YYC, that is what AK is referring to by saying 'close' and by North American standars he's right.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26638
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:31 am

Quoting YOW" class=quote target=_blank>YOW (Reply 67):
YOW is only a 40 plane ride to YUL and 1hr to YYZ, while YEG is only 45 mins from YYC, that is what AK is referring to by saying 'close' and by North American standars he's right.

As a North American from a place where I am definately used to driving (Los Angeles), I am well aware of distances. I am, however, talking about how the effect of driving limits an airport's traffic. This is true in the case of LAX and SAN when it comes to international traffic, as well as SFO as compares to OAK and SJC, MSY when compared to BTR, GPT, MOB or PNS, among others. A 3 hour drive from YEG to YYC or a 5 hour drive from Ottawa to Toronto is not going to chop traffic at the smaller airport.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:39 am

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 58):
Albuquerque and Santa Fe. However, I have heard a rumor in a past thread that Delta Connection (SkyWest) wants to start service to Santa Fe from Salt Lake City, and this could give new life to the Santa Fe airport.

Quite interestingly for many years Santa Fe resisted the idea of having commercial service. Until 10-15 years ago Provo likewise resisted commercial service, but now want it in many ways.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
jamincan
Posts: 587
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:28 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:48 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 68):
As a North American from a place where I am definately used to driving (Los Angeles), I am well aware of distances. I am, however, talking about how the effect of driving limits an airport's traffic. This is true in the case of LAX and SAN when it comes to international traffic, as well as SFO as compares to OAK and SJC, MSY when compared to BTR, GPT, MOB or PNS, among others. A 3 hour drive from YEG to YYC or a 5 hour drive from Ottawa to Toronto is not going to chop traffic at the smaller airport.

As for how driving limits service, I'm thinking of YHM, YXE and YKF. Especially YKF.

That said, it seems somewhat arbitrary to limit the mode of transportation to driving. YYZ's proximity by air is a huge factor in limiting service from YOW to pretty much everywhere. It is, without a doubt, in YYZ's shadow because the level of service it receives is negatively affected by the short and frequent flights to YYZ. YYZ is possibly an even larger shadow over YOW than YUL which is much closer. I don't see how it's any different if someone flies or drives. It still robs YOW of a possible flight, or more accurately a possible destination.
 
User avatar
KPDX
Posts: 2498
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 10:04 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:26 am

PDX and SLE definetly! Salem is about 40 miles away from Portland, and Salem is the second biggest town in Oregon!

KPDX  Smile
 
IdaBoy
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:31 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:47 am

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 44):
SLC makes service to SE viable! I don't think UA would as seriously consider service on EMB-120s or CRJs to either Idaho Falls or Pocatello from DEN as quickly as DL has from SLC. Provo and Ogden are significantly larger population centers, but they are both only about an hour or less driving to/from SLC. I think I see some envy about the service you get when compared with Montana communities further to the north.


SLC does bring alot of service to Idaho Falls, but if it was just another 2 or 3 hours away, Idaho Falls might see service simmilar to Missoula. And we have 2x daily CRJ flight to DEN.
 
mtnwest1979
Posts: 2211
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:23 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:54 am

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 17):
Quoting MtnWest1979 (Reply 15):
I'd add SCK to SFO/OAK, FOE to MCI.

SCK is an entirely different breed of airport compared to the two. SFO handles both domestic and international. High Asian routes and trans-pacific with it's handful of European flights. Domestic to about everywhere in the country with CO, F9, UA, AA, and US.

OAK is very much a domestic airport for LLC's. WN and JetBlue find hubs here due to the cheaper cost to fly into OAK over SFO. You will also find Federal Express and UPS hubs here. Shipping is a major traffic form for OAK. Lastly, OAK caters to business travelers. They have two separate runways that, when the weather provides, can be used by all business jets with the ramp just one taxiway over. They also allow ease for cessna's (and other's alike) and also have flight schools in the FBOs. If the price to land at SFO doesn't drive you away, the traffic and airspace factors don't allow this that often. In regards to SCK, AA has service and if I'm correct so will Mexicana.

I apologize for any errors.

I was not breaking it down in terms of types of service , just service in general. If Stockton was 300 miles from the nearest big city/airport, they likely would have multiple airlines flying there. That's all.
Riddle: Which lasts longer, a start-up airline or a start-up football league?
 
SJCRRPAX
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:29 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:16 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 54):
They are really and truly in the same metro area and the cities are well connected by both direct freeways and public transportation. Further, SFO is actually closer to San Jose than the San Francisco proper, making it a rather easy drive/train ride.

.
.
.
A long drive? It is less than an hour. Further, SJC has seen a significant pull down in service, particularly from AA while SFO still benefits from being a major international and domestic gateway with a major hub presence

SFO-SJC distance is 33 miles. SFO distance to Market Street SF 13 miles and is served directly by BART, so SFO is actually closer to SF than SJ.

Almost all SJC PAX's live at least 10 miles south of SJC, so typical about about 50 minutes to 1 hour to get to SFO from the south bay. OK, its not a long drive to SFO, but for me its a major inconvience --- I figure it costs me $100 more to fly SFO because of the inconvience, I would like just a couple of international flights from SJC --- SFO has 93% of all international flights in the bay area, but only 50% of the domestic traffic.

Not sure what you mean by SJC has seen a significant pull down in service. SJC is growing now about 2% year,

10.4 million pax's 2003
10.5 million pax's 2004
10.7 million pax's 2005
10.9 million pax's 2006 (years are ending june)

Delta just added a couple of flights to LAX for Mexico routes and SJC got upgraded to 767 on a couple of AA flights (I think they were to ORD -- can't remember --- but if your airport is increasing PAX loads, it means service is growing.
 
billreid
Posts: 761
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:04 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:33 am

Quoting MainMAN (Reply 22):
Amsterdam and Rotterdam.

Rotterdam is sometimes marketed as Amsterdam/Rotterdam, which surely must drive Rotterdammers nuts.

Both these two airports are managed by Schiphol so you'd have to say that leackage is not an issue, its a plan.

There are thousands

Quoting TPAnx (Reply 5):
TPA and PIE..about 15 miles apart.

That one is even more complex. Only seven miles apart as the crow flies. Some argue that PIE is really co-terminalized with TPA.
SRQ also sits under the shadow of TPA. So there are two.
What is most bizaar about this is TPA is not a destination airport,
Beaches goto SRQ or PIE first,
Amusement parks goto MCO or SFB first,
Cruises goto FLL or MIA first,
Business not that much in greater Tampa.

Therefore we have an absolute reversal The alternative airport is actually larger that the local destination airports. (PIE, SRQ, RSW)
Supporting this is that fares into SRQ and RSW are ALWAYS greater than into TPA.
Translation, only one reason to goto TPA, LOWER fares.
Again airline logic wins here. Why push the pax to higher fares at the correct destination when we can lose money at the larger airport.

Hence he new AIRLINE paradigm "HE WHO LOSEST THE MOST MONEY THE FASTEST WINS"
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:25 am

Quoting IdaBoy (Reply 72):
SLC does bring alot of service to Idaho Falls, but if it was just another 2 or 3 hours away, Idaho Falls might see service simmilar to Missoula. And we have 2x daily CRJ flight to DEN.

And those 2x to DEN is all you would continue to get from UA Express. If the population center for PVU were located where CDC is, they would get alot of service!
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:53 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 54):
They are really and truly in the same metro area and the cities are well connected by both direct freeways and public transportation. Further, SFO is actually closer to San Jose than the San Francisco proper, making it a rather easy drive/train ride.

Are you kidding me? 101 is a parking lot all rush hours during all days of the week. SFO to San Francisco is less than 15min. Getting to wherever you want to go in the city might be a different story but the distance from SFO and SJC compared to SFO and SF is much greater. Furthermore, Public Transportaton stops at SFO/Milbrae. From Milbrae you have to take a CalTran down to San Jose then grab a bus to the airport. I live in the east bay and it's exactly 59minues from my stop to SFO. From there it's another 20-35min's to SJC and another 10 on BART. BART has also gotten very expensive with trips to and from the airport-home costing around $11.00. I've only lived here for 16 years.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 54):

A long drive? It is less than an hour. Further, SJC has seen a significant pull down in service, particularly from AA while SFO still benefits from being a major international and domestic gateway with a major hub presence

Less than an hour at 2pm and 3am. Other than that it's at least an hour to an hour 20min. When it comes to International destinations, SFO is most defiantly the better pick but when it comes to anything within the US, SJC is the right stop. In terms of the pull down in passengers? Maybe for AA but WN and others alike, it has been great loads. There are also dedicated freight routes that are served to SJC. DC8, 767, 757, 727, DC10, MD11's daily from all shipping companies out there. During the week FedEx does 2x daily and (i think?) UPS does 2x daily as well.

Thanks,

Matt
"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
 
flyb
Posts: 557
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:39 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:23 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 68):
A 3 hour drive from YEG to YYC or a 5 hour drive from Ottawa to Toronto is not going to chop traffic at the smaller airport.

And that is why there are 19 flights daily between YEG and YYC? I couldn't disagree with you more.
 
eva777sea
Posts: 313
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:16 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:52 pm

I guess YVR is "in the shadow" of SEA in terms of domestic/US traffic but vice versa for INTL flights.
 
yow
Posts: 2125
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:47 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:34 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 68):
A 3 hour drive from YEG to YYC or a 5 hour drive from Ottawa to Toronto is not going to chop traffic at the smaller airport.

Even with only factoring in driving, which is an unfair assessment in my opinion, Ottawa still loses over 100,000 enplaned pax per year to YUL by some form of ground transportation (i.e. private vehicle, bus or train).
 
N1120A
Posts: 26638
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:57 am

Quoting Flyb (Reply 78):
And that is why there are 19 flights daily between YEG and YYC? I couldn't disagree with you more.

We are talking about service really and single connects are not an issue for airlines, nor a reason to say an airport lives in a shadow. Having 19 flights a day to any single destination when your airport has rather low O&D is saying something.

Quoting Yow (Reply 80):
Even with only factoring in driving, which is an unfair assessment in my opinion, Ottawa still loses over 100,000 enplaned pax per year to YUL by some form of ground transportation (i.e. private vehicle, bus or train).

Notice what you quoted? I didn't include Montreal, as Dorval-Trudeau is not out of the rhelm of possibility for drivers from the Capital Region.

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 74):
SFO-SJC distance is 33 miles. SFO distance to Market Street SF 13 miles and is served directly by BART, so SFO is actually closer to SF than SJ.

You read my post wrong. I saw stating that San Jose is closer to SFO than San Jose is to San Francisco proper. The way I wrote the post should have made that clear, but more than one person overlooked it.

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 74):
I figure it costs me $100 more to fly SFO because of the inconvience, I would like just a couple of international flights from SJC --- SFO has 93% of all international flights in the bay area, but only 50% of the domestic traffic.

The reason SFO has all those flights is really quite simple, they have an established history of service and the facilities that can handle them. You don't have hub feed into SJC that you do at SFO, nor are you as central to the region, as San Jose is in a fringe location as a regional population center, despite being the larger city proper.

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 74):
Not sure what you mean by SJC has seen a significant pull down in service. SJC is growing now about 2% year,

Sure, San Jose has seen incremental growth in domestic capacity, but it has seen a significant pull down in single-carrier focus city operations, which is the death knell for international service.

Quoting SJCRRPAX (Reply 74):
but if your airport is increasing PAX loads, it means service is growing.

Not particularly. That means that Southwest has added more flights to ABQ and LAS, not that actual service to different places is growing.

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 77):
Are you kidding me? 101 is a parking lot all rush hours during all days of the week. SFO to San Francisco is less than 15min. Getting to wherever you want to go in the city might be a different story but the distance from SFO and SJC compared to SFO and SF is much greater. Furthermore, Public Transportaton stops at SFO/Milbrae. From Milbrae you have to take a CalTran down to San Jose then grab a bus to the airport

Again, you read my post completely wrong. I said that San Jose is closer to SFO than San Jose is to San Francisco proper, only I did replaced the unwieldy second San Jose with "it". Anyone should have read that and known what I was saying. Beyond that, public transportation doesn't stop at SFC/Milbrae in either direction, as CalTrain is most definately public transportation and operates between the CalTrain Depot in San Francisco and San Jose Diridon (at a minimum).

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 77):
There are also dedicated freight routes that are served to SJC. DC8, 767, 757, 727, DC10, MD11's daily from all shipping companies out there.

Freight has nothing to do with this.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
SJCRRPAX
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:29 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:47 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 81):
The reason SFO has all those flights is really quite simple, they have an established history of service and the facilities that can handle them. You don't have hub feed into SJC that you do at SFO, nor are you as central to the region, as San Jose is in a fringe location as a regional population center, despite being the larger city proper.

San Jose is not a fringe location just because you have never been there does not make it "fringe". From the SJC website,

San Jose is California's 3rd largest and the nation's 10th largest city (population 945,000 - 2005).
San Jose is the capitol of Silicon Valley.
29 out of the nations 100 fastest growing technology companies are located in Silicon Valley.
50 Silicon Valley companies with market capitalization greater than $1 billion are clustered within a 12-mile radius of SJC.
73% of high technology businesses in the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area are located in Silicon Valley.
SJC is the only major airport in Santa Clara County and over 2.3 million people live within 30 minutes of the Airport.

Because of the Bay Bridges so many people need to cross to get to SFO, the argument can be made that SFO is more fringe than SJC. OAK is probably the best located airport in the bay area.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 54):
Further, SFO is actually closer to San Jose than the San Francisco proper, making it a rather easy drive/train ride.

I'm sorry but there is only one way to interpret the above. You should have said, "San Jose is closer to SFO than it is to San Francisco proper", but I understand, and for a French Guy your English is superior.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 81):
Not particularly. That means that Southwest has added more flights to ABQ and LAS, not that actual service to different places is growing.

Other than the loss of service to Tokyo, what other service has SJC lost recently? An airport that grows PAX's will grow service in due time. There are now enough Santa Clara County Residents to fill up planes to several locations outside the U.S., so if there is any validity to Boeings point-point claims than airports like SJC, SAN and HAM should prove the theory one way or the other.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3928
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:09 am

How about SEA and BFI? At sunset in the winter months, BFI is almost literally in the shadow of SEA (weather permitting).
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:49 am

Quoting EVA777SEA (Reply 79):
I guess YVR is "in the shadow" of SEA in terms of domestic/US traffic but vice versa for INTL flights.

 checkmark  Bingo! The 49th dictates the service availability of both. It will amaze you the number of Canucks who drive down from metro Vancouver to SEA-TAC to fly somewhere in the US and the number of Puget Sounders who drive up to YVR to catch a flight to somewhere in Asia. More often than not to save  dollarsign 
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
User avatar
jetjack74
Posts: 6649
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 6:35 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:49 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 83):
How about SEA and BFI? At sunset in the winter months, BFI is almost literally in the shadow of SEA (weather permitting).

was mentioned.

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 52):
I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but SEA and BFI. The approach for Sea-Tac is right over Boeing Field/King County International. BFI doesn't have any pax service with the exception of San Juan Airlines or Kenmore Air.

And I forgot to remark on it's freighter base for 360 Cargo, DHL, UPS, and AEX.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 56):
Last year WN tried a "go around" the Port Authority of Seattle and tried to get exclusive service into BFI that made AS, UA, AA, NW and DL have a major ! The administration of King County (that oversees BFI) said no to WN. SEA-TAC sided with the local NIMBY's on that one!

Well, King County executive Ron Sims put the brakes on that. Probabaly the only smart thing he's done. I give him credit for that, becuase traffic is one less thing Seattle needs right now, and I-5 at the Michigan curve is bad enough. The last thing we need is more tie-ups on I-5.
Made from jets!
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26468
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 3:57 am

Quoting Rdwelch (Reply 50):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 49):
Quoting Rdwelch (Reply 48):
I thought someone would have done MIA-FLL by now.

Why? FLL sees 20M+ passengers a year, has more domestic airlines, and carriers more domestic passengers and domestic O&D than Miami does.

Then we'll do it the other way around. One has to be bigger than the other. Think outside the box.

Think outside the box for what? Both are major airports, both have a huge selection of airlines. It's like saying LGA is in JFK's shadow or DCA is in IAD's shadow. There is no shadow. Despite the "rivarly" between MIA and FLL, they co-exist quite nicely.
a.
 
longhaulheavy
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:52 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:14 am

Quoting Phxtravelboy (Thread starter):
Several people from WI drive to Ord for more convenient schedules and these people could be kept in WI if Mke had more service

The reverse is also true. I know people who live in Chicago's north suburbs who would much rather fly out of MKE than ORD. With NW and YX having major operations there, you can get to pretty much any major city in the country on a nonstop flight. Plus MKE doesn't have the same size hassles, and parking is a heck of a lot cheaper.
 
texan
Posts: 4071
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:23 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:02 am

Quoting Phxtravelboy (Thread starter):
Hi everyone, I have a theory that some of the airports out there really don't get as much service as they could do to the fact they are "in the shadow" of a larger airport close by. I'm not talking about airports within one large metro area such as LA with Ont, Sna, etc.

It's an interesting question. A rebuttal question would be, if it were not for the nearby airports, would the airports "in the shadow" truly have more service? For example, both OKC and TUL serve areas with growing business and catchement areas of more than 1 million people. Back when they were surrounded by the hubs/focus cities of DAL, DFW, DEN, MCI, ORD, and STL, OKC had 37 flights to these cities alone and TUL had 40. Now, frequencies have been cut by WN to both DAL, MCI, and STL, and AA has reduced frequency and capacity to DFW, ORD, and STL. In return, UA has started 3-4 daily CRJ flights to regional destinations from OKC and a couple to TUL. So with the demise of one of the hubs that kept both airports partially hidden, especially in the east, there has been an overall decrease in capacity.

This is not a question that can be easily answered, nor would the "rule" figured out hold true in all circumstances. But other airports in the shadow of larger nearby airports include SDF (Louisville) to CVG, STL, DTW, and ORD; DAY to the same; MDT (Harrisburg) to BWI and PHL; OKC/TUL in the example above and to each other; IND to CVG, DTW, STL, ORD/MDW. Probably lots more, but there are a few examples that came to mind.

Texan
"I have always imagined that Paradise will be a kind of library."
 
trndskywrd
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 12:26 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:18 am

Quoting AUA747 (Reply 25):
I would have to say DAB and MCO. Only DL and CO serves DAB. DAB has been struggling to get service of airlines.

Actually, DAB is notw served by DL, CO, and UA. Daily nonstop service to ATL, EWR, and IAD respectively. CO has seasonal service to CLE and UA has seasonal service to ORD.
 
GQfluffy
Posts: 3072
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:25 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:20 pm

How about LAX and LGB (Long Beach)????
This isn't where I parked my car...
 
stylo777
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 8:07 pm

in Istanbul there are IST (Atatürk Airport) and the smaller one SAW (Sabiha Gökcen). I am sure that SAW will expand in the near future...
 
User avatar
SLCUT2777
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 12:17 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:56 pm

Quoting Jetjack74 (Reply 85):
Well, King County executive Ron Sims put the brakes on that. Probably the only smart thing he's done. I give him credit for that, because traffic is one less thing Seattle needs right now, and I-5 at the Michigan curve is bad enough. The last thing we need is more tie-ups on I-5.

Beyond the traffic on I-5 (which is bad I agree), it would of been WN monopolizing an inter-city airport and essentially having exclusive service or virtual exclusive service. We don't need another major U.S. metro area with a Wright Amendment type feud.
DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
 
dnl65
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2001 5:52 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:32 am

After all this interesting speculation perhaps one or two of you may be interested in what actually happens. If so, try to score a copy of "Airport Systems; planning design, and management" by deNeufville and Odoni published by McGraw Hill. Chapter 5 is a discussion of multiple airport systems and how they develop. Far from being in the "shadow" of a larger airport many smaller airports make themselves attractive to a certain portion or niche of the air transport system and become quite successful.
 
RickYHM
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:55 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Tue Aug 29, 2006 1:25 am

YHM Hamilton International is about 50 km from YYZ Toronto Pearson Airport. It has always had a problem getting flights even though their it's primary catchment area is 3.25 million people and within 2 hours there are 9 million people. Also YYZ is the most expensive airport to land at in the world and YHM is a fraction of the cost.
 
rdwelch
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:59 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 86):
Think outside the box for what? Both are major airports, both have a huge selection of airlines. It's like saying LGA is in JFK's shadow or DCA is in IAD's shadow. There is no shadow. Despite the "rivarly" between MIA and FLL, they co-exist quite nicely.

I'm just going by what the Thread Starter stated. They're a half an hour away or so and one is bigger than the other. I know they co-exist well, but I would venture to guess that when most people think of South Florida, they think of MIA.

Gus.
They say I have ADD, but they don't understand..Oh look! A chicken!
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26468
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:09 am

Quoting Rdwelch (Reply 95):
I'm just going by what the Thread Starter stated. They're a half an hour away or so and one is bigger than the other. I know they co-exist well, but I would venture to guess that when most people think of South Florida, they think of MIA.

But that isn't true. When most people think of South Florida, they say "I'm going to fly to FLL, because the fares are lower". The fact is that FLL has nearly double the local domestic air traffic than Miami does, even though it is a smaller airport. Hardly being in the shadows.
a.
 
rdwelch
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:13 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 96):
MAH4546

I see your point, but in terms of total amount of traffic, domestic and international, where does FLL rank as opposed to MIA? I'm not a good stats man, but if you could as a favor, could you get those?

Thanks, Gus.
They say I have ADD, but they don't understand..Oh look! A chicken!
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26468
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:03 am

Quoting Rdwelch (Reply 97):
I see your point, but in terms of total amount of traffic, domestic and international, where does FLL rank as opposed to MIA? I'm not a good stats man, but if you could as a favor, could you get those?

FLL carriers roughly around 21M passengers, MIA is around 31M passengers. FLL carriers around 18-19M domestic passengers, MIA carries around 14-15M domestic passengers. FLL has nearly double the amount of domestic airlines than MIA does. That is not in the shadows when an airport has double the choices.

In the shadows is Melbourne, Florida, which has one airline with flights to two cities, largely due to nearby MCO.
a.
 
rdwelch
Posts: 449
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 5:52 am

RE: Airports "In The Shadow" Of A Bigger

Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:28 am

[quote=MAH4546,reply=98]FLL carriers roughly around 21M passengers, MIA is around 31M passengers. FLL carriers around 18-19M domestic passengers, MIA carries around 14-15M domestic passengers. FLL has nearly double the amount of domestic airlines than MIA does. That is not in the shadows when an airport has double the choices.

I was looking at the total. The thread didn't specify domestic over international. MIA, in my opinion is larger than FLL in total flights and pax. However, I do appreciate the stats.

Thanks, Gus.
They say I have ADD, but they don't understand..Oh look! A chicken!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests

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