Comment by samtho | Hacker News Reader

Comment by samtho | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Why would an airline have any business in acquiring, getting approved/zoned, and constructing an bespoke airport close to a major metro that would presumably only benefit that airline? Airlines already operate at razor thin margins, specialize in only the transporting aspect, and would not be the best party to oversee the development of airfields and airports. Additionally, companies other than the major airlines use an airport, from cargo carriers (large jetliners to “FedEx feeder”-type routes), private operations like NetJets, and even privately owned and operated aircraft all use it.

This is solidly the domain of a local company, collective, or a local municipality that understands this business and every aspect of it. Airlines are happy to pay usage fees (landing fees, gate fees, leasing) to specifically not deal with airport operations unrelated to their own fleet and operations.

We need to find ways to improve the process from initial concept, terminal layout, retail spaces, and public ground transport that connects to the city center.

Also, usually the airport is there before homes were built so every owner in the flight path made the decision to live there.

I think you misunderstand my comment.

Airlines should not be building a "bespoke airport close to a major metro" that only benefits that airline. They should be building their hubs in the middle of nowhere and serve only connecting flights out of them, because it's the fact that the hubs are in the metros that cause problems.

When half of the traffic through the airport isn't destined for the metro, then half the traffic doesn't need to be going through it.

> Also, usually the airport is there before homes were built so every owner in the flight path made the decision to live there.

I don't want to respond to this because I think it misses that opposition to airport expansion isn't just "planes loud." There is not a place in west suburban Chicagoland unaffected by the expansion of O'hare. It is not just about the flight paths.

The airlines don't even want it anymore.

I quite like the idea of dedicated hubs a decent distance away from anything else, but you'd still need to staff and supply it so "the middle of nowhere" probably isn't feasible.

Airlines make an airport a hub because half the people are going there, not because of the half that aren't.

If they could sell their gate slots and use another hub at a reasonable profit, they would.

Of course, we're past when everyone wanted 747s and giant Airbuses so perhaps the hub and spoke system will slowly melt away into smaller more direct flights.

This way the airline can be nearly certain of getting plenty of gate space. Delta played a strong role in building Atlanta Hartsfield.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com