Page 3 of 3

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:25 am
by rev
Actually I think it may have been Dallas.

They have an airport, Dallas Love Field Airport, about 6km from the start of tall buildings (their uptown) or 9km from their official "downtown".
This isn't even the main airport for the region, with the huge Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport serving 75 million passengers a year. The Dallas Love Field airport still serves 16 million passengers a year, and rising. The runways/flight paths of both runways are close to their uptown/downtown, similar to our situation.

Downtown Dallas has 6 buildings greater then 200m, 14 between 150-199m, and at least 22 between 100-149m. Tallest is 280m, and at least 4 more buildings over 100m are u/c.

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:14 pm
by Philip_Green
yes it should be

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:10 am
by [Shuz]
Must be a slow news week, this topic seems to be discussed at least every 6 months.

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:40 am
by SBD
[Shuz] wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:10 am
Must be a slow news week, this topic seems to be discussed at least every 6 months.
Yes - but only on weeks that nobody complains the railway stations are too far from the city centre. Presumably we have people who like long train rides before and after their plane rides instead of short taxi rides.

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 12:29 pm
by Ho Really
SBD wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:40 am
[Shuz] wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:10 am
Must be a slow news week, this topic seems to be discussed at least every 6 months.
Yes - but only on weeks that nobody complains the railway stations are too far from the city centre. Presumably we have people who like long train rides before and after their plane rides instead of short taxi rides.
What about the long (expensive) taxi rides? I'd rather be on a train to the CBD or metro area if it is way cheaper (and of course if it is more handy). Anyhow this is a moot discussion. Adelaide won't see a new airport for at least 50 years, perhaps even more.

Cheers

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 4:37 pm
by rev
I'd say well beyond 50 years we wont see the airport moved, or a new airport built. Even with the best case scenario for population growth.
But that doesn't mean we can't theorize what ifs.

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:56 pm
by Jaymz
rev wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:25 am

Downtown Dallas has 6 buildings greater then 200m, 14 between 150-199m, and at least 22 between 100-149m. Tallest is 280m, and at least 4 more buildings over 100m are u/c.
That's interesting. It made me look up Dallas today and that city is almost identical population to Adelaide, around 1.3 million. Yes, they have A LOT more buildings over 100 metres, but seem to lack the low/mid rise that Adelaide has, in fact they seem to have very little from the photos I saw. A true comparison would be to compare the two in the total amount of lettable office space.

Why they have an airport that has 10x the traffic compared to Adelaide is also interesting, is it geography? Has the state of Texas targeted this?

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:18 pm
by Ho Really
Jaymz wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:56 pm
[...]

Why they have an airport that has 10x the traffic compared to Adelaide is also interesting, is it geography? Has the state of Texas targeted this?
Combine the population of Dallas and Fort Worth and their greater metro area and you are looking at over 7.5 million people (US Census Bureau 2019 estimates). You can read up more about the economy at Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex on Wikipedia.

Cheers

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:27 pm
by Jaymz
Ho Really wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:18 pm
Jaymz wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:56 pm
[...]

Why they have an airport that has 10x the traffic compared to Adelaide is also interesting, is it geography? Has the state of Texas targeted this?
Combine the population of Dallas and Fort Worth and their greater metro area and you are looking at over 7.5 million people (US Census Bureau 2019 estimates). You can read up more about the economy at Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex on Wikipedia.

Cheers
Okay I believe you without looking it up. But why is this airport busier than LAX and JFK, they are on the east/west coast of the country, but DLV handles more passengers?

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:25 pm
by rev
Jaymz wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:27 pm
Ho Really wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:18 pm
Jaymz wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:56 pm
[...]

Why they have an airport that has 10x the traffic compared to Adelaide is also interesting, is it geography? Has the state of Texas targeted this?
Combine the population of Dallas and Fort Worth and their greater metro area and you are looking at over 7.5 million people (US Census Bureau 2019 estimates). You can read up more about the economy at Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex on Wikipedia.

Cheers
Okay I believe you without looking it up. But why is this airport busier than LAX and JFK, they are on the east/west coast of the country, but DLV handles more passengers?
There's two major airports there in Dallas. The one I'm talking about is the Dallas Love Field airport, or DLV as you said. That handles more then Adelaide Airport, at around 16 million passengers compared to our 8 million. DLV is a focus city for Southwest Airlines. Southwest dwarfs Qantas and Virgin combined, it has nearly 800 aircraft in it's fleet. Qantas has 126 and Virgin 74. Southwest carries over 15 million of those 16~ million passengers.
The other airport nearby is much bigger Dallas Fort Worth International, with 75 million passengers.
LAX handles over 88 million passengers.

The demand is there in America. 15 of the busiest airports in the world are American, and 6 of those are in the top 20. Two in the top 3 alone.
Aircraft movements is even crazier, the last stats I can find on wiki are from 2017, and 7 of the top 13 are American, the top 4 is all American, 7 of the top 8 are American as well.

I guess it helps that they have 350 million people living in America major cities dotted all over the continent.

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:56 pm
by 1NEEDS2POST
Adelaide already has a second airport capable of handling big jets, RAAF Edinburgh. It's underused by the air force, it could handle far more jets. They could build a civilian terminal there and lease it to airlines. This is what happens at Newcastle, Darwin and Townsville.

RAAF Edinburgh is already there, no need to build another airport. It's also capable of operating 24/7.

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2020 8:31 am
by bits
American Airlines Hq is Dallas Fort Worth.
Southwest Airlines Hq is Dallas Live Field.

Both use them as Fortress Hubs and direct most their traffic through them.

Also Dallas is a major tech and medical precinct.
Much of the household names in computers are from Dallas, moreso from the 80's-90's era.

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:02 pm
by SBD
1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:56 pm
Adelaide already has a second airport capable of handling big jets, RAAF Edinburgh. It's underused by the air force, it could handle far more jets. They could build a civilian terminal there and lease it to airlines. This is what happens at Newcastle, Darwin and Townsville.

RAAF Edinburgh is already there, no need to build another airport. It's also capable of operating 24/7.
I guess "big jets" is relative - the runway was extended when 737s (P-8 Poseidon) were going to be based there. It is still shorter than the main runway at Adelaide, and I think the pavement strength is lower, too.

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:49 pm
by rev
1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:56 pm
Adelaide already has a second airport capable of handling big jets, RAAF Edinburgh. It's underused by the air force, it could handle far more jets. They could build a civilian terminal there and lease it to airlines. This is what happens at Newcastle, Darwin and Townsville.

RAAF Edinburgh is already there, no need to build another airport. It's also capable of operating 24/7.
They don't allow the current airport to operate 24/7, why do you believe they would allow 24/7 commercial flight activity in the northern suburbs?
And I don't think the military operating an airbase 24/7 is the same as commercial airliners operating 24/7 at a civilian airport. I suspect there are a different set of regulations or rules that the ADF operate under.

And none of those airports are anywhere near as busy as Adelaide Airport and never will be.

Activity at Adelaide Airport is increasing, as it is at the RAAF base. So it's likely a second runway would be needed. National security and defence isn't going to take a back seat and wait in line for commercial airliners to take off obviously. Adelaide Airport has over 100,000 aircraft movements a year.
So what would be the point of using the RAAF base then? May as well just build a new airport somewhere else if you're going to go to the trouble of building a new terminal, runway, parking facilities, hotel.

Re: Moving the airport to a less populated area

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:48 am
by Nort
1NEEDS2POST wrote:
Fri Oct 02, 2020 6:56 pm
Adelaide already has a second airport capable of handling big jets, RAAF Edinburgh. It's underused by the air force, it could handle far more jets. They could build a civilian terminal there and lease it to airlines. This is what happens at Newcastle, Darwin and Townsville.

RAAF Edinburgh is already there, no need to build another airport. It's also capable of operating 24/7.
The airspace of Edinburgh and Parafield is already jammed together, there isn't as much spare capacity there as you would think.